Essex Property Trust - 10-K annual report

                      (MARK ONE)

 

(Exact name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

(Address of Principal Executive Offices including Zip Code)

(Registrant's Telephone Number, Including Area Code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of Registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K, or any amendment to this Form 10-K.                                                                                        [   ]

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).

As of June 30, 2005, the aggregate market value of the voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was $1,880,817,368. The aggregate market value was computed with reference to the closing price on the New York Stock Exchange on such date. Shares of common stock held by executive officers, directors and holders of more than ten percent of the outstanding common stock have been excluded from this calculation because such persons may be deemed to be affiliates. This exclusion does not reflect a determination that such persons are affiliates for any other purposes.

As of March 10, 2006, 22,881,621 shares of Common Stock ($.0001 par value) were outstanding.

LOCATION OF EXHIBIT INDEX: The index exhibit is contained in Part III, Item 15, on page number 42.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

The following document is incorporated by reference in Part III of the Annual Report on Form 10-K: Proxy statement for the annual meeting of stockholders of Essex Property Trust, Inc. to be held May 9, 2006.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Essex Property Trust, Inc. (“Essex”) is a Maryland corporation that operates as a self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust (“REIT”). Essex owns all of its interest in its real properties directly or indirectly through Essex Portfolio, L.P. (the “Operating Partnership”). Essex is the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership and as of December 31, 2005 owns a 90.4% general partnership interest. In this report, the terms “we”, “us” and “our” refer to Essex Property Trust, it’s Operating Partnership and their subsidiaries.

 

The Company has elected to be treated as a real estate investment trust (“REIT”) for federal income tax purposes, commencing with the year ended December 31, 1994 as the Company completed an initial public offering on June 13, 1994. In order to maintain compliance with REIT tax rules, the Company utilizes taxable REIT subsidiaries (“TRS”) for various revenue generating or investment activities. The TRSs’ are consolidated by the Company.

 

We are engaged primarily in the ownership, operation, management, acquisition, development and re-development of real estate. Our real estate consists primarily of apartment communities. As of December 31, 2005, we owned or held an interest in 126 apartment communities, aggregating 26,587 units, located predominantly along the West Coast (collectively, the “Properties”, and individually, a “Property”). Our other properties included three recreational vehicle parks (totaling 562 spaces), three office buildings (totaling approximately 166,340 square feet), which the company primarily occupies and uses as office space, and one manufactured housing community (containing 157 pads). We currently have three development projects, with 505 units in various stages of development (together with the Properties, the “Portfolio”).

 

The following is a discussion of our business objectives and strategies with respect to real estate investment and management. One or more of these criteria may be amended or rescinded from time to time without stockholder vote.

 

 

Our primary business objectives are to increase shareholders’ value by investing in properties located in supply constrained markets, improving operating results and the value of our Properties while maintaining a conservative balance sheet. We intend to achieve these objectives by:

 

We can not assure that we will achieve our business objectives.

 

 

 

Recognizing that all real estate markets are cyclical, we regularly evaluate the results of our regional economic, as well as our local market research and adjust the geographic focus of our portfolio accordingly. We seek to increase our portfolio allocation in markets projected to have the strongest local economies and to decrease such allocations in markets projected to have declining economic conditions. Likewise, the Company also seeks to increase its portfolio allocation in markets that have attractive property valuations and to decrease such allocations in markets that have inflated valuations and low relative yields.

 

 

 

 

Acquisitions have been a significant growth component of our business. In 2005, we completed, in addition to acquisitions by the Essex Apartment Value Fund II (“Fund II”) discussed below, a series of acquisitions that added to our overall portfolio.

 

 

 

 

In January 2006, we acquired two apartment communities - Chimney Sweep and CBC, aggregating 239 units, located in Isla Vista, California for a combined price of approximately $57.1 million.

 

As part of our strategic plan to own quality real estate in supply-constrained markets, we continually evaluate our Properties and sell those which no longer meet our strategic criteria. We may use the capital generated from the dispositions to invest in higher-return Properties or repay debts. We believe that the sale of these Properties will not have a material impact on our future results of operations or cash flows nor will their sale materially affect our ongoing operations. Generally, any impact of earnings dilution resulting from these dispositions will be offset by the positive impact of our acquisitions, development and redevelopment activities.

 

 

 

 

 

Development communities are defined as new apartment properties that are being constructed or are newly constructed and in a phase of lease-up and have not reached 95% physical occupancy (stabilized operations). In the first quarter of 2005, we stabilized the second phase of development at San Marcos, which is located in Richmond, California. Total construction costs for the 120 units were approximately $23.9 million.

 

In connection with the properties currently under development, we have entered into contractual construction-related commitments with unrelated third parties. As of December 31, 2005, we are committed to approximately $96.6 million in estimated development expenditures to complete these projects.

 

As of December 31, 2005, we had three development projects in various stages of construction and other pre-development costs in our pipeline with combined estimated costs of $133.7 million. The following table sets forth information regarding the Company’s development communities at December 31, 2005.

 

Redevelopment is defined as investment on existing Properties with the expectation of increased financial returns through property improvement. During redevelopment certain apartment units typically are not available for rent and, as a result, may have less than stabilized operations. As of December 31, 2005, we had ownership interests in six redevelopment communities aggregating 1,450 apartment units with estimated redevelopment costs of $36.8 million, of which approximately $23.5 million remains to be expended.

The following table illustrates those redevelopment projects:

 

On February 1, 2005, we obtained a non-recourse mortgage on a previously unencumbered property in the amount of $21.8 million with a 4.94% fixed interest rate for a 9-year term, maturing in March 2014, with an option to extend the maturity for one year thereafter at a floating rate of 2.4% over one month LIBOR. During the extension period, the loan may be paid in full with no prepayment penalty.

 

 

On May 19, 2005, we obtained three non-recourse mortgage loans in the aggregate amount of $12.9 million, secured by second deeds of trusts, with an average interest rate of 5.32% and maturity dates ranging from May 1, 2009 to January 1, 2013.

 

On July 14, 2005, we obtained a non-recourse mortgage loan on previously unencumbered property in the aggregate amount of $40.3 million with a fixed interest rate of 4.935% for a 10-year term that matures on August 1, 2015.

 

 

 

 

To hedge the cash flows associated with the refinancings of a portion of the debt that matures in 2007 and 2008 the Company entered into the following contracts:

 

 

We believe that these transactions will be effective in offsetting changes in future cash flows for forecasted transactions and qualify for hedge accounting. The increase in the fair value of these derivatives during 2005 was approximately $660,000 and is reflected in accumulated other comprehensive income in the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

 

On February 22, 2006, the Company entered into additional notional forward-starting swaps. The first was for $25.0 million with a commercial bank at a fixed rate of 5.082% and a settlement date on or before January 1, 2009. The second and third swaps are for a total of $100.0 million with two commercial banks at a fixed rate of 5.099% and a settlement date on or before January 1, 2011. These derivatives will be used to economically hedge the cash flows associated with the refinancing of debt that matures in 2008 and 2010, respectively

 

 

The Company repurchased $25 million of common stock in conjunction with our exchangeable bond offering in the fourth quarter of 2005. The Company also granted stock options and certain employees exercised their options pursuant to the Company’s Stock Incentive Plan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Company is headquartered in Palo Alto, California, and has regional offices in Woodland Hills, California; Irvine, California; San Diego, California; Bellevue, Washington; and Portland, Oregon. As of December 31, 2005, the Company had approximately 820 employees.

 

The Company carries comprehensive liability, fire, extended coverage and rental loss insurance for each of the Properties. There are, however, certain types of extraordinary losses, such as, for example, losses for terrorism or earthquake, for which the Company may not have sufficient insurance coverage.

Substantially all of the Properties are located in areas that are subject to earthquake activity. The Company has obtained earthquake insurance for most the Properties. Most of the Properties are included in an earthquake insurance program that is subject to an aggregate limit of $80.0 million payable upon a covered loss in excess of a $15.0 million self-insured retention amount and a 5% deductible. In the future, the Company may selectively exclude properties from being covered by earthquake insurance based on management's evaluation of the following factors: (i) the availability of coverage on terms acceptable to the Company, (ii) the location of the property and the amount of seismic activity affecting that region, and, (iii) the age of the property and building codes in effect at the time of construction. Despite earthquake coverage on most of the Company's Properties, should a property sustain damage as a result of an earthquake, the Company may incur losses due to deductibles, co-payments and losses in excess of applicable insurance, if any.

 

Although the Company may carry insurance for potential losses associated with its properties, employees, residents, and compliance with applicable laws, it may still incur losses due to uninsured risks, deductibles, co-payments or losses in excess of applicable insurance coverage.

 

There are numerous housing alternatives that compete with our multifamily properties in attracting residents. These include other multifamily rental apartments and single-family homes that are available for rent in the markets in which the properties are located. The properties also compete for residents with new and existing homes and condominiums that are for sale. If the demand for our properties is reduced or if competitors develop and/or acquire competing properties on a more cost-effective basis, rental rates and occupancy may drop, which may have a material adverse affect on our financial condition and results of operations.

 

We face competition from other real estate investment trusts, businesses and other entities in the acquisition, development and operation of properties. Some of the competitors are larger and have greater financial resources than we do. This competition may result in increased costs of properties we acquire and/or develop.

 

We believe that cash flows generated by our operations, existing cash balances, availability under existing lines of credit, access to capital markets and the ability to generate cash gains from the disposition of real estate are sufficient to meet all of our reasonably anticipated cash needs during 2006. The timing, source and amounts of cash flows provided by financing activities and used in investing activities are sensitive to changes in interest rates and other fluctuations in the capital markets environment, which can affect our plans for acquisitions, dispositions, development and redevelopment activities.

 

 

 

 

We intend to continue to operate in a manner that will not subject us to regulation under the Investment Company Act of 1940. The Company has in the past five years and may in the future (i) issue securities senior to its Common Stock, (ii) fund acquisition activities with borrowings under its line of credit and (iii) offer shares of Common Stock and/or units of limited partnership interest in the Operating Partnership or affiliated partnerships as partial consideration for property acquisitions. The Company from time to time acquires partnership interests in partnerships and joint ventures, either directly or indirectly through subsidiaries of the Company, when such entities' underlying assets are real estate. In general, the Company does not (i) underwrite securities of other issuers or (ii) actively trade in loans or other investments.

 

 

Our business, operating results, cash flows and financial conditions are subject to various risks and uncertainties, including, without limitation, those set forth below, any one of which could cause our actual results to vary materially from recent results or form our anticipated future results.

 

 

 

 

 

2006--$26.2 million;

2007--$82.0 million;

2008--$155.7 million;

2009--$34.4 million;

2010--$159.3 million;

Thereafter--$872.2 million.

 

We may not be able to refinance such mortgage indebtedness, bonds, or lines of credit. The Properties subject to these mortgages could be foreclosed upon or otherwise transferred to the lender. This could cause us to lose income and asset value. We may be required to refinance the debt at higher interest rates or terms of such refinancing may not be as favorable as the terms of existing indebtedness.

 

 

As of December 31, 2005, Essex had 72 of its 120 consolidated multifamily properties encumbered by debt. Of the 72 properties, 53 are secured by deeds of trust relating solely to those properties. With respect to the remaining 19 properties, there are 4 cross-collateralized mortgages secured by 8 properties, 6 properties, 3 properties and 2 properties, respectively. The holders of this indebtedness will have a claim against these properties and, to the extent indebtedness is cross-collateralized, lenders may seek to foreclose upon properties, which are not the primary collateral for their loan. This may accelerate other indebtedness secured by properties. Foreclosure of properties would reduce our income and asset value.

 

 

As of December 31, 2005, we had approximately $186.7 million of long-term variable rate indebtedness bearing interest at floating rates tied to the rate of short-term tax-exempt revenue bonds (which mature at various dates from 2020 through 2034), and $25.0 million of variable rate indebtedness under our lines of credit, bearing interest at the Freddie Mac Reference Rate plus from 0.55% to 0.59%.

Approximately $152.7 million of the long-term indebtedness is subject to interest rate cap protection agreements, which may reduce the risks associated with fluctuations in interest rates. The remaining $34.0 million of long-term variable rate indebtedness was not subject to any interest rate cap protection agreements as of December 31, 2005. An increase in interest rates may have an adverse effect on our net income and results of operations.

 

 

 

 

Income from the properties may be further adversely affected by, among other things, the following factors:

 

 

As leases on the properties expire, tenants may enter into new leases on terms that are less favorable to us. Income and real estate values also may be adversely affected by such factors as applicable laws (e.g., the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 and tax laws), interest rate levels and the availability and terms of financing. Real estate investments are relatively illiquid and, therefore, our ability to vary our portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions may be quite limited.

 

 

 

 

We pursue multifamily residential property development projects and these projects generally require various governmental and other approvals, which have no assurance of being received. Our development activities generally entail certain risks, including the following:

 

 

 

 

We also face competition from other real estate investment trusts, businesses and other entities in the acquisition, development and operation of properties. Some of the competitors are larger and have greater financial resources than we do. This competition may result in increased costs of properties we acquire and/or develop.

 

These terms also provide that while such preferred stock is outstanding, Essex cannot authorize, declare, or pay any distributions on the Common Stock, unless all distributions accumulated on all shares of such preferred stock have been paid in full. The distributions payable on such preferred stock may impair Essex’s ability to pay dividends on its Common Stock.

 

If Essex wishes to issue any Common Stock in the future (including, upon exercise of stock options), the funds required to continue to pay cash dividends at current levels will be increased. Essex’s ability to pay dividends will depend largely upon the performance of the Properties and other properties that may be acquired or developed in the future.

 

If Essex cannot pay dividends on its stock, Essex’s status as a real estate investment trust may be jeopardized. Our ability to pay dividends on our common stock is further limited by the Maryland General Corporation Law. Under the Maryland General Corporation Law, Essex may not make a distribution on stock if, after giving effect to such distribution, either:

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Marcus has agreed not to divulge any information that may be received by him in his capacity as Chairman of Essex to any of his affiliated companies and that he will abstain his vote on any and all resolutions by the Essex Board of Directors regarding any proposed acquisition and/or development of a multifamily property where it appears that there may be a conflict of interest with any of his affiliated companies. 

Notwithstanding this agreement, Mr. Marcus and his affiliated entities may potentially compete with us in acquiring and/or developing multifamily properties, which competition may be detrimental to us. In addition, due to such potential competition for real estate investments, Mr. Marcus and his affiliated entities may have a conflict of interest with us, which may be detrimental to the interests of Essex’s stockholders.

 

 

Under the partnership agreement of the Operating Partnership, the consent of the holders of limited partnership interests is generally required for any amendment of the agreement and for certain extraordinary actions. Through their ownership of limited partnership interests and their positions with us, our directors and executive officers, including Mr. Marcus and Mr. William A. Millichap, a director of Essex, have substantial influence on us. Consequently, their influence could result in decisions that do not reflect the interests of all stockholders.

 

 

These voting rights of the preferred stock may allow holders of preferred stock to impede or veto actions that would otherwise benefit the holders of Essex’s Common Stock. While any shares of Series F Preferred Stock or shares of preferred stock into which the preferred units are exchangeable are outstanding, Essex may not, without the consent of the holders of two-thirds of the outstanding shares of each series of preferred stock, each voting separately as a single class;

 

 

 

 

The aggregate redemption price of the Series B Preferred Units would be $80 million, the aggregate redemption price of the Series D Preferred Units would be $50 million and the aggregate redemption price of the Series F Preferred Stock would be $25 million, plus, in each case, any accumulated distributions.

These redemption rights may discourage or impede transactions that might otherwise be in the interest of holders of common stock. Further, these redemption rights might trigger situations where Essex needs to conserve its cash reserves, in which event such redemption might adversely affect Essex and its common holders.

 

 

The law also requires a supermajority stockholder vote for such transactions. This means that the transaction must be approved by at least:

 

 

However, as permitted by the statute, the Board of Directors of Essex irrevocably has elected to exempt any business combination by us, George M. Marcus, William A. Millichap, who are the chairman and a director of Essex, respectively, and TMMC or any entity owned or controlled by Messrs. Marcus and Millichap and TMMC. Consequently, the super-majority vote requirement described above will not apply to any business combination between us and Mr. Marcus, Mr. Millichap, or TMMC. As a result, we may in the future enter into business combinations with Messrs. Marcus and Millichap and TMMC, without compliance with the super-majority vote requirements and other provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law.

 

 

Essex’s Charter authorizes the issuance of additional shares of common stock or preferred stock and the setting of the preferences, rights and other terms of such preferred stock without the approval of the holders of the common stock. We may establish one or more series of preferred stock that could delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change in control. Such a transaction might involve a premium price for our stock or otherwise be in the best interests of the holders of common stock. Also, such a class of preferred stock could have dividend, voting or other rights that could adversely affect the interest of holders of common stock.

 

Essex’s Charter, as well as Essex’s stockholder rights plan, contains other provisions that may delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might be in the best interest of Essex’s stockholders. Essex’s stockholder rights plan is designed, among other things, to prevent a person or group from gaining control of us without offering a fair price to all of Essex’s stockholders. The Bylaws may be amended by the Board of Directors to include provisions that would have a similar effect, although Essex presently has no such intention. The Charter contains ownership provisions limiting the transferability and ownership of shares of capital stock, which may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a transaction or a change in control. For example, subject to receiving an exemption from the Board of Directors, potential acquirers may not purchase more than 6% in value of the stock (other than qualified pension trusts which can acquire 9.9%). This may discourage tender offers that may be attractive to the holders of common stock and limit the opportunity for stockholders to receive a premium for their shares of common stock.

 

The Maryland General Corporations Law restricts the voting rights of shares deemed to be “control shares.”

Under the Maryland General Corporations Law, “control shares” are those which, when aggregated with any other shares held by the acquirer, entitle the acquirer to exercise voting power within specified ranges. Although the Bylaws exempt Essex from the control share provisions of the Maryland General Corporations Law, the Board of Directors may amend or eliminate the provisions of the Bylaws at any time in the future. Moreover, any such amendment or elimination of such provision of the Bylaws may result in the application of the control share provisions of the Maryland General Corporations Law not only to control shares which may be acquired in the future, but also to control shares previously acquired. If the provisions of the Bylaws are amended or eliminated, the control share provisions of the Maryland General Corporations Law could delay, defer or prevent a transaction or change in control that might involve a premium price for the stock or otherwise be in the best interests of Essex’s stockholders.

 

 

From time to time, we, through the Operating Partnership, invest in corporations, limited partnerships, limited liability companies or other entities that have been formed for the purpose of acquiring, developing or managing real property. In certain circumstances, the Operating Partnership’s interest in a particular entity may be less than a majority of the outstanding voting interests of that entity. Therefore, the Operating Partnership’s ability to control the daily operations of such an entity may be limited. Furthermore, the Operating Partnership may not have the power to remove a majority of the board of directors (in the case of a corporation) or the general partner or partners (in the case of a limited partnership) of such an entity in the event that its operations conflict with the Operating Partnership’s objectives. The Operating Partnership may not be able to dispose of its interests in such an entity. In the event that such an entity becomes insolvent, the Operating Partnership may lose up to its entire investment in and any advances to the entity. We have and in the future may enter into transactions that could require us to pay the tax liabilities of partners, which contribute assets into joint ventures or the Operating Partnership, in the event that certain taxable events, which are within our control, occur. Although we plan to hold the contributed assets or defer recognition of gain on their sale pursuant to the like-kind exchange rules under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code, we can provide no assurance that we will be able to do so and if such tax liabilities were incurred they can expect to have a material impact on our financial position.

 

 

 

 

 

 

We will, however, generally seek to maintain sufficient influence over Fund II to permit it to achieve its business objectives.

 

 

 

If any of the above were to occur, cash flows from operations and our ability to make expected dividends to stockholders could be adversely affected.

 

 

Investments in real property create a potential for environmental liabilities on the part of the owner of such real property. We carry certain limited insurance coverage for this type of environmental risk. We have conducted environmental studies which revealed the presence of groundwater contamination at certain properties. Such contamination at certain of these properties was reported to have migrated on-site from adjacent industrial manufacturing operations. The former industrial users of the properties were identified as the source of contamination. The environmental studies noted that certain properties are located adjacent to any possible down gradient from sites with known groundwater contamination, the lateral limits of which may extend onto such properties. The environmental studies also noted that at certain of these properties, contamination existed because of the presence of underground fuel storage tanks, which have been removed. In general, in connection with the ownership, operation, financing, management and development of real properties, we may be potentially liable for removal or clean-up costs, as well as certain other costs and environmental liabilities. We may also be subject to governmental fines and costs related to injuries to persons and property.

 

Recently there has been an increasing number of lawsuits against owners and managers of multifamily properties alleging personal injury and property damage caused by the presence of mold in residential real estate. Some of these lawsuits have resulted in substantial monetary judgments or settlements. Essex has been sued for mold related matters and has settled some, but not all, such matters, which matters remain unresolved and pending. Insurance carriers have reacted to mold related liability awards by excluding mold related claims from standard policies and pricing mold endorsements at prohibitively high rates. Essex has, however, purchased pollution liability insurance, which includes limited coverage for mold, although the insurance may not cover all pending or future mold claims. Essex has adopted programs designed to manage the existence of mold in its properties as well as guidelines for promptly addressing and resolving reports of mold to minimize any impact mold might have on residents or the property. Essex cannot assure you that it will not be sued in the future for mold related matters not can it assure you that the liabilities resulting from such current or future mold related matters will not be substantial. The costs of carrying insurance to address potential mold related claims may also be substantial.

 

California has enacted legislation commonly referred to as “Proposition 65” requiring that “clear and reasonable” warnings be given to consumers who are exposed to chemicals known to the State of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity, including tobacco smoke. Although we have sought to comply with Proposition 65 requirements, we cannot assure you that we will not be adversely affected by litigation relating to Proposition 65.

 

Methane gas is a naturally-occurring gas that is commonly found below the surface in several areas, particularly in the Southern California coastal areas.  Methane is a non-toxic gas, but can be ignitable in confined spaces.  Although naturally-occurring, methane gas is not regulated at the state or federal level, some local governments, such as the County of Los Angeles, have imposed requirements that new buildings install detection systems in areas where methane gas is known to be located. 

Methane gas is also associated with certain industrial activities, such as former municipal waste landfills. Radon is also a naturally-occurring gas that is found below the surface. Essex cannot assure you that it will not be adversely affected by costs related to its compliance with methane gas related requirements or litigation costs related to methane or radon gas.

 

Except with respect to three Properties, the Company has no indemnification agreements from third parties for potential environmental clean-up costs at its Properties. The Company has no way of determining at this time the magnitude of any potential liability to which it may be subject arising out of unknown environmental conditions or violations with respect to the properties formerly owned by the Company. No assurance can be given that existing environmental studies with respect to any of the Properties reveal all environmental liabilities, that any prior owner or operator of a Property did not create any material environmental condition not known to the Company, or that a material environmental condition does not exist as to any one or more of the Properties. The Company has limited insurance coverage for the types of environmental liabilities described above.

 

 

 

 

Our organizational documents do not limit the amount or percentage of indebtedness that may be incurred. Accordingly, the Board of Directors of Essex could change current policies and the policies of the Operating Partnership regarding indebtedness. If we changed these policies, we could incur more debt, resulting in an increased risk of default on our obligations and the obligations of the Operating Partnership, and an increase in debt service requirements that could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Such increased debt could exceed the underlying value of the Properties.

 

Essex has established several taxable REIT subsidiaries. Despite Essex’s qualification as a REIT, its taxable REIT subsidiaries must pay U.S. federal income tax on their taxable income. While Essex will attempt to ensure that its dealings with its taxable REIT subsidiaries will not adversely affect its REIT qualification, it cannot provide assurance that it will successfully achieve that result. Furthermore, Essex may be subject to a 100% penalty tax, or its taxable REIT subsidiaries may be denied deductions, to the extent its dealings with its taxable REIT subsidiaries are not deemed to be arm’s length in nature. No assurances can be given that Essex’s dealings with its taxable REIT subsidiaries will be arm’s length in nature.

 

From time to time, we may transfer or otherwise dispose of some of our Properties. Under the Internal Revenue Code, any gain resulting from transfers of Properties that we hold as inventory or primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business would be treated as income from a prohibited transaction subject to a 100% penalty tax. Since we acquire properties for investment purposes, we do not believe that our occasional transfers or disposals of property are prohibited transactions. However, whether property is held for investment purposes is a question of fact that depends on all the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular transaction. The Internal Revenue Service may contend that certain transfers or disposals of properties by us are prohibited transactions. If the Internal Revenue Service were to argue successfully that a transfer or disposition of property constituted a prohibited transaction, then Essex would be required to pay a 100% penalty tax on any gain allocable to Essex from the prohibited transaction and Essex’s ability to retain future gains on real property sales may be jeopardized. Income from a prohibited transaction might adversely affect Essex’s ability to satisfy the income tests for qualification as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Therefore, no assurances can be given that Essex will be able to satisfy the income tests for qualification as a REIT.

 

 

 

 

Our core apartment portfolio as of December 31, 2005 (including partial ownership interests) was comprised of 126 multifamily properties (comprising 26,587 apartment units), of which 13,382 units are located in Southern California, 6,557 units are located in the San Francisco Bay Area, 5,471 units are located in the Seattle Metropolitan Area, and 875 units are located in the Portland Metropolitan Area. The Company’s multifamily properties accounted for 99% of the Company’s property revenues for the year ended December 31, 2005.

 

 

The 126 apartment communities had an average Same-Properties occupancy (as defined in Item 7), based on “financial occupancy,” during the year ended December 31, 2005, of approximately 96.9%. With respect to stabilized multifamily properties with sufficient operating history, occupancy figures are based on financial occupancy (the percentage resulting from dividing actual rental revenue by total possible rental revenue). Actual rental revenue represents contractual revenue pursuant to leases without considering delinquency and concessions. Total possible rental revenue represents the value of all apartment units, with occupied units valued at contractual rental rates pursuant to leases and vacant units valued at estimated market rents. We believe that financial occupancy is a meaningful measure of occupancy because it considers the value of each vacant unit at its estimated market rate. Financial occupancy may not completely reflect short-term trends in physical occupancy and financial occupancy rates as disclosed by other REITs may not be comparable to our calculation of financial occupancy.

 

As of December 31, 2005, the headquarters building was 100% occupied by the Company and the Southern California office building was 99% occupied, based on physical occupancy. With respect to office buildings, occupancy figures are based on “physical occupancy” which refers to the percentage resulting from dividing leased and occupied square footage by rentable square footage. With respect to recreational vehicle parks, manufactured housing communities, or multifamily properties which have not yet stabilized or have insufficient operating history, occupancy figures are based on “physical occupancy” which refers to the percentage resulting from dividing leased and occupied units by rentable units.

 

For the year ended December 31, 2005, none of the Company’s Properties had book values equal to 10% or more of total assets of the Company or gross revenues equal to 10% or more of aggregate gross revenues of the Company.

 

 

Our apartment communities are generally suburban garden apartments and town homes comprising multiple clusters of two and three story buildings situated on three to fifteen acres of land.

The multifamily properties have on average 210 units, with a mix of studio, one, two and some three-bedroom units. A wide variety of amenities are available at each apartment community, including covered parking, fireplaces, swimming pools, clubhouses with complete fitness facilities, volleyball and playground areas and tennis courts.

 

We select, train and supervise a full team of on-site service and maintenance personnel. We believe that the following primary factors enhance our ability to retain tenants:

 

 

 

The Company’s corporate headquarters is located in a two-story office building with approximately 17,400 square feet located at 925 East Meadow Drive, Palo Alto, California. The Company acquired this property in 1997. The Company also owns an office building in Southern California (Woodland Hills), comprised of approximately 38,940 square feet building, of which the Company occupies approximately 11,200 square feet at December 31, 2005. The building has nine third party tenants occupying approximately 27,400 feet. The largest single tenant occupies approximately 10,900 square feet. The Company acquired this property in 2001. The Company has a mortgage loan receivable on an office building with approximately 110,000 square feet located in Irvine, California, which is consolidated under FIN 46R.

 

 

The Company owns three recreational vehicle parks (comprising of 562 spaces), acquired in the Company’s December 2002 acquisition of John M. Sachs, Inc., located in El Cajon and San Jaciento, California.

 

The Company owns one manufactured housing community (containing 157 sites), acquired in the Company’s December 2002 acquisition of John M. Sachs, Inc., located in Vista, California.

 

 

 

 

In April 2004, an employee lawsuit entitled Chance Nelson and Douglas Korte, et al vs. Essex Property Trust, as filed against the Company in the California Superior Court in the County of Alameda. In this lawsuit, two former Company maintenance employees seek unpaid wages, associated penalties and attorneys’ fees on behalf of a putative class of the Company’s current and former maintenance employees who were required to wear a pager while they were on call during evening and weekend hours. In June 2005, the Company recorded $1.5 million for legal settlement costs. There has been no change to the settlement amount since the second quarter of 2005. However, litigation is subject to inherent uncertainties, and such amount represents management’s best estimate of the total cost of the litigation at this time.

 

Recently there has been an increasing number of lawsuits against owners and managers of multifamily properties alleging personal injury and property damage caused by the presence of mold in residential real estate. Some of these lawsuits have resulted in substantial monetary judgments or settlements. The Company has been sued for mold related matters and has settled some, but not all, of such matters. Insurance carriers have reacted to mold related liability awards by excluding mold related claims from standard policies and pricing mold endorsements at prohibitively high rates. The Company has, however, purchased pollution liability insurance, which includes coverage for mold. The Company has adopted programs designed to manage the existence of mold in its properties as well as guidelines for promptly addressing and resolving reports of mold to minimize any impact mold might have on residents or the property. Liabilities resulting from such mold related matters and the costs of carrying insurance to address potential mold related claims may also be substantial.

 

The Company is subject to various other lawsuits in the normal course of its business operations. Accordingly, such lawsuits, as well as the class action lawsuit described above, could result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

 

 

During the fourth quarter of 2005, no matters were submitted to a vote of security holders.

 

 

The shares of the Company’s common stock are traded on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol ESS.

 

 

The Company’s common stock has been traded on the NYSE since June 13, 1994. The high, low and closing price per share of common stock reported on the NYSE for the quarters indicated are as follows:

 

 

 

 

The approximate number of holders of record of the shares of the Company’s common stock was 208 as of March 10, 2006. This number does not include stockholders whose shares are held in trust by other entities. The actual number of stockholders is greater than this number of holders of record.

 

 

Under provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, the portion of the cash dividend, if any, that exceeds earnings and profits is considered a return of capital. The return of capital is generated due to a variety of factors, including the deduction of non-cash expenses, primarily depreciation, in the determination of earnings and profits.

 

The status of the cash dividends distributed for the years ended December 31, 2005, 2004 and 2003 for tax purposes is as follows:

 

 

Since its initial public offering on June 13, 1994, the Company has paid regular quarterly dividends to its stockholders. From inception, the Company has paid the following dividends per share of common stock:

 

 

On February 23, 2006, the Company announced the Board of Directors approved a $0.12 per share annual increase to the quarterly cash dividend. Accordingly, the first quarter dividend distribution, payable on April 17, 2006 to stockholders as of record as of March 31, 2006, will be $0.84 per share.

 

 

 

 

In 1998, the Company adopted a stockholder rights plan that is designed to enhance the ability of all of the Company’s stockholders to realize the long-term value of their investment. The rights plan is designed, in part, to prevent a person or group from gaining control of the Company without offering a fair price to all of the Company’s stockholders.

 

On October 13, 1998, the Board declared a one for one preferred share purchase right (a “Right”) for each outstanding share of Common Stock. Each Right entitles the registered holder to purchase from the Company one one-hundredth of a share of Series A Junior Participating Preferred Stock, par value $.0001 per share, of the Company, at a price of $99.13 per one-hundredth of a share, subject to adjustment. The description and terms of the Rights are set forth in a Rights Agreement dated as of November 11, 1998, as amended between the Company and Computershare, LLC as Rights Agent.

 

 

See our disclosure in the 2006 Proxy Statement under the heading “Equity Compensation Plan Information”, which disclosure is incorporated herein by reference.

 

In October and November 2005, the Operating Partnership raised $225 million from the sale of exchangeable senior notes. In conjunction with the sale of the notes, on October 28, 2005 the Operating Partnership repurchased an aggregate of 286,073 shares at a cost of approximately $25 million.