BXP, Inc. - 10-K annual report

BPLP is the entity through which BXP conducts substantially all of our business and owns, either directly or through subsidiaries, substantially all of its assets. BXP is the sole general partner and also a limited partner of BPLP. As the sole general partner of BPLP, BXP has exclusive control of BPLP’s day-to-day management.

As of December 31, 2016, BXP owned an approximate 89.5% ownership interest in BPLP. The remaining approximate 10.5% interest is owned by limited partners. The other limited partners of BPLP are (1) persons who contributed their direct or indirect interests in properties to BPLP in exchange for common units or preferred units of limited partnership interest in BPLP or (2) recipients of long term incentive plan units of BPLP pursuant to BXP’s Stock Option and Incentive Plans. Under the limited partnership agreement of BPLP, unitholders may present their common units of BPLP for redemption at any time (subject to restrictions agreed upon at the time of issuance of the units that may restrict such right for a period of time, generally one year from issuance). Upon presentation of a common unit for redemption, BPLP must redeem the unit for cash equal to the then value of a share of BXP’s common stock. In lieu of cash redemption by BPLP, however, BXP may elect to acquire any common units so tendered by issuing shares of BXP common stock in exchange for the common units. If BXP so elects, its common stock will be exchanged for common units on a one-for-one basis. This one-for-one exchange ratio is subject to specified adjustments to prevent dilution. BXP generally expects that it will elect to issue its common stock in connection with each such presentation for redemption rather than having BPLP pay cash. With each such exchange or redemption, BXP’s percentage ownership in BPLP will increase. In addition, whenever BXP issues shares of its common stock other than to acquire common units of BPLP, BXP must contribute any net proceeds it receives to BPLP and BPLP must issue to BXP an equivalent number of common units of BPLP. This structure is commonly referred to as an umbrella partnership REIT, or UPREIT.

The Company believes that combining the Annual Reports on Form 10-K of BXP and BPLP into this single report provides the following benefits:

The Company believes it is important to understand the few differences between BXP and BPLP in the context of how BXP and BPLP operate as a consolidated company. The financial results of BPLP are consolidated into the financial statements of BXP. BXP does not have any other significant assets, liabilities or operations, other than its investment in BPLP, nor does it have employees of its own. BPLP, not BXP, generally executes all significant business relationships other than transactions involving the securities of BXP. BPLP holds substantially all of the assets of BXP, including ownership interests in joint ventures. BPLP conducts the operations of the business and is structured as a partnership with no publicly traded equity. Except for the net proceeds from equity offerings by BXP, which are contributed to the capital of BPLP in exchange for common or preferred units of partnership in BPLP, as applicable, BPLP generates all remaining capital required by the Company’s business. These sources include working capital, net cash provided by operating activities, borrowings under its revolving credit facility, the issuance of secured and unsecured debt and equity securities and proceeds received from the disposition of certain properties and joint ventures.

Shareholders’ equity, partners’ capital and noncontrolling interests are the main areas of difference between the consolidated financial statements of BXP and BPLP. The limited partners of BPLP are accounted for as partners’ capital in BPLP’s financial statements and as noncontrolling interests in BXP’s financial statements. The noncontrolling interests in BPLP’s financial statements include the interests of unaffiliated partners in various consolidated partnerships. The noncontrolling interests in BXP’s financial statements include the same noncontrolling interests at BPLP’s level and limited partners of BPLP. The differences between shareholders’ equity and partners’ capital result from differences in the equity issued at BXP and BPLP levels.

In addition, the consolidated financial statements of BXP and BPLP differ in total real estate assets resulting from previously applied acquisition accounting by BXP for the issuance of common stock in connection with non-sponsor redemptions of common units of BPLP. This accounting resulted in a step-up of the real estate assets at BXP. This resulted in a difference between the net real estate of BXP as compared to BPLP of approximately $327.5 million, or 2.1% at December 31, 2016 and a corresponding difference in depreciation expense, impairment losses and gains on sales of real estate upon the sale of certain properties having an allocation of the real estate step-up. The acquisition accounting was nullified on a prospective basis beginning in 2009 as a result of the Company’s adoption of a new accounting standard requiring any future redemptions to be accounted for solely as an equity transaction.

To help investors better understand the key differences between BXP and BPLP, certain information for BXP and BPLP in this report has been separated, as set forth below:

This report also includes separate Part II, Item 9A. Controls and Procedures sections and separate Exhibits 23, 31 and 32 consents and certifications for each of BXP and BPLP.

BXP, a Delaware corporation organized in 1997; is a fully integrated, self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust, or “REIT,” and one of the largest owners and developers of office properties in the United States.

We consider Class A office properties to be well-located buildings that are professionally managed and maintained, attract high-quality tenants and command upper-tier rental rates, and that are modern structures or have been modernized to compete with newer buildings. Our definitions of Class A office properties may be different than those used by other companies.

Our internet address is http://www.bostonproperties.com. On our website, you can obtain a free copy of our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. You may also obtain BXP’s and BPLP’s reports by accessing the EDGAR database at the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov, or we will furnish an electronic or paper copy of these reports free of charge upon written request to: Investor Relations, Boston Properties, Inc., The Prudential Center, 800 Boylston Street, Suite 1900, Boston, Massachusetts 02199. “Boston Properties” is a registered trademark, and the “bxp” logo is a trademark, of BPLP.

On April 22, 2016, we acquired 3625-3635 Peterson Way located in Santa Clara, California for a purchase price of approximately $78.0 million in cash. 3625-3635 Peterson Way is an approximately 218,000 net rentable square foot office property. The property is 100% leased to a single tenant through March 2021. Following the lease expiration, we intend to develop the site into a Class A office campus containing an aggregate of approximately 632,000 net rentable square feet.

For information explaining why BXP and BPLP may have different gains on sales of real estate, see the Explanatory Note.

On February 1, 2016, we completed the sale of our 415 Main Street property located in Cambridge, Massachusetts to the tenant for a gross sale price of approximately $105.4 million. Net cash proceeds totaled approximately $104.9 million, resulting in a gain on sale of real estate totaling approximately $60.8 million for BXP and approximately $63.0 million for BPLP. As part of its lease signed on July 14, 2004, the tenant was granted a fixed-price option to purchase the building at the beginning of the 11th lease year, which option was exercised by the tenant on October 22, 2014. 415 Main Street is an office property with approximately 231,000 net rentable square feet.

On August 19, 2016, the consolidated entity in which we have a 55% interest and that owns 601 Lexington Avenue located in New York City commenced the redevelopment of the six-story, low-rise office and retail building component of the complex, which will be called 159 East 53rd Street. The redeveloped portion of the low-rise building will contain approximately 195,000 net rentable square feet of Class A office space and approximately 25,000 net rentable square feet of retail space. We will capitalize incremental costs during the redevelopment. We expect the building will be available for occupancy during the second quarter of 2018. As a result, during the year ended December 31, 2016, BXP and BPLP recognized approximately $50.8 million and $47.6 million, respectively, of depreciation expense associated with the acceleration of depreciation on the assets being removed from service and demolished as part of the redevelopment of the property. Approximately $21.4 million of those amounts was allocated to the outside partners and is included within Noncontrolling Interests in Property Partnerships in our Consolidated Statements of Operations.

On November 7, 2016, we entered into a 15-year lease with a tenant for approximately 476,500 net rentable square feet of Class A office space in a build-to-suit development project to be located at our 145 Broadway property at Kendall Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 145 Broadway currently consists of an approximately 80,000 net rentable square foot Class A office property that will be demolished and developed into an approximately 486,000 net rentable square foot Class A office property, including approximately 9,500 net rentable square feet of retail space. The commencement of the redevelopment project is subject to the receipt of the remaining necessary approvals, and we currently expect to begin the project in the second quarter of 2017 with the relocation of an existing tenant to another property within our portfolio. We expect the building will be available for occupancy during the fourth quarter of 2019. There can be no assurance that the project will commence or that the building will be available for occupancy on the anticipated schedule or at all.

On October 24, 2016, we entered into an option agreement that will allow us to ground lease, with the future right to purchase, real property adjacent to the MacArthur BART station located in Oakland, California, that could support the development of a 400-unit residential building and supporting retail space.

On December 6, 2016, we entered into a development agreement with The George Washington University to pursue the development of a Class A office property with approximately 482,000 net rentable square feet on land parcels located at 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC. The development agreement provides for the execution of a 75-year ground lease for the property upon completion of the entitlement process and relocation of existing tenants anticipated to occur in 2019. We have made a deposit of $15.0 million that, upon execution of the ground lease, will be credited against ground rent under the ground lease.

On April 11, 2016, we used available cash to repay the mortgage loan collateralized by our Fountain Square property located in Reston, Virginia totaling approximately $211.3 million. The mortgage loan bore interest at a fixed rate of 5.71% per annum and was scheduled to mature on October 11, 2016. There was no prepayment penalty.

In addition, beginning in 2015, our 767 Fifth Partners LLC, which is a subsidiary of the consolidated entity in which we have a 60% interest and that owns 767 Fifth Avenue (the General Motors Building) in New York City, entered into sixteen forward-starting interest rate swap contracts that fix the 10-year swap rate at a weighted-average rate of approximately 2.619% per annum on notional amounts aggregating $450.0 million. These interest rate swap contracts were entered into in advance of a financing with a target commencement date in June 2017 and maturity in June 2027. Our 767 Fifth Partners LLC consolidated entity entered into the interest rate swap contracts designated and qualifying as cash flow hedges to reduce its

During the year ended December 31, 2016, BXP acquired an aggregate of 190,857 common units of limited partnership interest, including 103,847 common units issued upon the conversion of LTIP Units, 2012 OPP Units and 2013 MYLTIP Units presented by the holders for redemption, in exchange for an equal number of shares of BXP common stock.

On April 11, 2016, a joint venture in which we have a 50% interest received an event of default notice from the lender for the loan collateralized by its Annapolis Junction Building One property.  Subsequently, the cash flows generated from the property have become insufficient to fund debt service payments and capital improvements necessary to lease and operate the property and the joint venture is not prepared to fund additional cash shortfalls at this time. Consequently, the joint venture is not current on making debt service payments and remains in default. The loan has an outstanding balance of approximately $39.6 million (our share is approximately $19.8 million), is non-recourse to us, bears interest at a variable rate equal to LIBOR plus 1.75% per annum and has a stated maturity date of March 31, 2018, with one, three-year extension option, subject to certain conditions including that the loan is not in default. The lender notified the joint venture that it has elected to charge the default interest rate on the loan equal to LIBOR plus 5.75% per annum. The joint venture is currently in discussions with the lender regarding the event of default, although there can be no assurance as to the outcome of those discussions. The estimated fair value of our investment in the unconsolidated joint venture exceeds its carrying value. Annapolis Junction Building One is a Class A office property with approximately 118,000 net rentable square feet located in Annapolis, Maryland.

On July 1, 2016, we entered the Los Angeles market through our acquisition of a 49.8% interest in an existing joint venture that owns and operates Colorado Center located in Santa Monica, California for a gross purchase price of approximately $511.1 million, or approximately $503.6 million in cash net of credits for free rent, unfunded leasing costs and other adjustments. Colorado Center is a six-building office complex that sits on a 15-acre site and contains an aggregate of approximately 1,184,000 net rentable square feet with an underground parking garage for 3,100 vehicles.

On October 1, 2016, a joint venture in which we have a 50% interest completed and fully placed in-service 1265 Main Street, a Class A office project with approximately 115,000 net rentable square feet located in Waltham, Massachusetts. The property is 100% leased. On December 8, 2016, the joint venture obtained mortgage financing totaling $40.4 million collateralized by the property. The mortgage loan bears interest at a fixed rate of 3.77% per annum and matures on January 1, 2032.

On November 28, 2016, we entered into a joint venture with the partner at our North Station development to acquire the air rights for the future development of a hotel property at the site. The joint venture partner contributed an air rights parcel and improvements, with a fair value of approximately $7.4 million, for its initial 50% interest in the joint venture. We contributed improvements totaling approximately $0.7 million and will contribute cash totaling approximately $6.7 million for our initial 50% interest. On November 28, 2016, the joint venture entered into a 99-year air rights lease with a third-party hotel developer/operator. In addition, on November 28, 2016, we and our partner entered into a joint venture to acquire the air rights for the future development of a residential tower at the site, consisting of an approximately 40-story residential tower totaling approximately 320,000 rentable square feet comprised of 440 apartment units. The joint venture partner contributed an air rights parcel, with a fair value of approximately $24.2 million, for its initial 50% interest in the joint venture. We contributed

On December 19, 2016, a joint venture in which we have a 50% interest obtained construction financing with a total commitment of $250.0 million collateralized by its Dock 72 development project. The construction financing bears interest at a variable rate equal to LIBOR plus 2.25% per annum and matures on December 18, 2020, with two, one-year extension options, subject to certain conditions.  As of December 31, 2016, there have been no amounts drawn under the loan.  Dock 72 is a Class A office project with approximately 670,000 net rentable square feet located in Brooklyn, New York.

Our primary business objective is to maximize return on investment to provide our investors with the greatest possible total return in all points of the economic cycle. Our strategies to achieve this objective are:

We believe that our development experience, our organizational depth and our balance sheet position us to continue to selectively develop a range of property types, including high-rise urban developments, mixed-use developments (including office, residential and retail), low-rise suburban office properties and research and laboratory space, within budget and on schedule. We believe we are also well positioned to achieve external growth through acquisitions. Other factors that contribute to our competitive position include:

The discussion below sets forth certain additional information regarding our investment, financing and other policies. These policies have been determined by BXP’s Board of Directors and, in general, may be amended or revised from time to time by the Board of Directors.

Our investment objectives are to provide quarterly cash dividends/distributions to our securityholders and to achieve long-term capital appreciation through increases in our value. We have not established a specific policy regarding the relative priority of these investment objectives.

We expect to continue to pursue our investment objectives primarily through the ownership of our current properties, development projects and other acquired properties. We currently intend to continue to invest primarily in developments of properties and acquisitions of existing improved properties or properties in need of redevelopment, and acquisitions of land that we believe have development potential, primarily in our existing markets of Boston, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC. We have explored and may continue to explore for future investment select domestic and international markets that exhibit these same traits. Future investment or development activities will not be limited to a specified percentage of our assets. We intend to engage in such future investment or development activities in a manner that is consistent with the maintenance of BXP’s status as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. In addition, we may purchase or lease income-producing commercial and other types of properties for long-term investment, expand and improve the real estate presently owned or other properties purchased, or sell such real estate properties, in whole or in part, when circumstances warrant. We do not have a policy that restricts the amount or percentage of assets that will be invested in any specific property, however, our investments may be restricted by our debt covenants.

We may also continue to participate with third parties in property ownership, through joint ventures or other types of co-ownership. These investments may permit us to own interests in larger assets without unduly restricting diversification and, therefore, add flexibility in structuring our portfolio.

While our current portfolio consists primarily of, and our business objectives emphasize, equity investments in commercial real estate, we may, at the discretion of the Board of Directors of BXP, invest in mortgages and other types of real estate interests consistent with BXP’s qualification as a REIT. Investments in real estate mortgages run the risk that one or more borrowers may default under such mortgages and that the collateral securing such mortgages may not be sufficient to enable us to recoup our full investment. We may invest in participating, convertible or traditional mortgages if we conclude that we may benefit from the cash flow, or any appreciation in value of the property or as an entrance to the fee ownership.

Subject to the percentage of ownership limitations and gross income and asset tests necessary for BXP’s REIT qualification, we also may invest in securities of other REITs, other entities engaged in real estate activities or securities of other issuers, including for the purpose of exercising control over such entities.

Our decision to dispose or partially dispose of properties is based upon the periodic review of our portfolio and the determination by the Board of Directors of BXP that such action would be in our best interests. Any decision to dispose of a property will be authorized by the Board of Directors of BXP or a committee thereof. Some holders of limited partnership interests in BPLP, could incur adverse tax consequences upon the sale of certain of our properties that differ from the tax consequences to BXP. Consequently, holders of limited partnership interests in BPLP may have different objectives regarding the appropriate pricing and timing of any such sale. Such different tax treatment derives in most cases from the fact that we acquired these properties in exchange for partnership interests in contribution transactions structured to allow the prior owners to defer taxable gain. Generally, this deferral continues so long as we do not dispose of the properties in a taxable transaction. Unless a sale by us of these properties is structured as a like-kind exchange under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code or in a manner that otherwise allows deferral to continue, recognition of the deferred tax gain allocable to these prior owners is generally triggered by a sale. Only 767 Fifth Avenue (the General Motors Building) is subject to a tax protection agreement through June 2017, which may limit our ability to dispose of it or require us to pay damages to the prior owner in the event of a taxable sale.

The agreement of limited partnership of BPLP and BXP’s certificate of incorporation and bylaws do not limit the amount or percentage of indebtedness that we may incur. Further, we do not have a policy limiting the amount of indebtedness that we may incur, nor have we established any limit on the number or amount of mortgages that may be placed on any single property or on our portfolio as a whole. However, our mortgages, credit facilities and unsecured debt securities contain customary restrictions, requirements and other limitations on our ability to incur indebtedness. In addition, we evaluate the impact of incremental leverage on our debt metrics and the credit ratings of BPLP's publicly traded debt.

As one of the largest owners and developers of office properties in the United States, we actively work to promote our growth and operations in a sustainable and responsible manner across our five regions. Our sustainability strategy is broadly focused on the economic, social and environmental aspects of our activities, which include the design and construction of our new developments and the operation of our existing buildings. We are focused on creating healthy workspaces and high performance properties while simultaneously mitigating operational costs and the potential external impacts of energy, water, waste and greenhouse gas emissions. To that end, we have publicly adopted long-term energy, emissions, water and waste goals that establish aggressive reduction targets. As a company with a core strategy of long-term ownership, we are committed to charitable giving, volunteerism and public realm investments that make a positive impact on the communities in which we conduct business. Through these efforts, we demonstrate that operating and developing commercial real estate can be conducted with a conscious regard for the environment while mutually benefiting our tenants, investors, employees and the communities in which we operate.

We have been recognized as an industry leader in sustainability. During 2016, we ranked second among US Office companies in the Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (“GRESB”) assessment. BXP was among the top 5% of all participants, ranking 36th out of 733 global companies. 2016 was the fifth straight year that BXP has ranked in the top quartile of GRESB assessment participants, earning another “Green Star” recognition and a GRESB 5-star Rating. During 2014 and 2015, BXP was selected by the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts (“NAREIT”) as a Leader in the Light Award winner. NAREITs annual Leader in the Light Awards honor NAREIT member companies that have demonstrated superior and sustained sustainability practices.

In addition, we currently have four residential properties (including two under construction) and may in the future decide to acquire or develop additional residential properties. As an owner, we will also face competition for prospective residents from other operators/owners whose properties may be perceived to offer a better location or better amenities or whose rent may be perceived as a better value given the quality, location and amenities that the resident seeks. We will also compete against condominiums and single-family homes that are for sale or rent. Because the scale of our residential portfolio is relatively small, we expect to continue to retain third parties to manage our residential properties.

We operate our hotel property through a taxable REIT subsidiary. The taxable REIT subsidiary, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BPLP, is the lessee pursuant to a lease for the hotel property. As lessor, BPLP is entitled to a percentage of gross receipts from the hotel property. The hotel lease is intended to provide the economic benefits of ownership of the underlying real estate to flow to us as rental income, while our taxable REIT subsidiary earns the profit from operating the property as a hotel. Marriott International, Inc. continues to manage the hotel property under the Marriott name and under terms of the existing management agreements. Marriott has been engaged under a separate long-term incentive management agreement to operate and manage the hotel on behalf of the taxable REIT subsidiary.

BXP is currently governed by an eleven member Board of Directors. The current members of the Board of Directors of BXP are Bruce W. Duncan, Karen E. Dykstra, Carol B. Einiger, Dr. Jacob A. Frenkel, Joel I. Klein, Douglas T. Linde, Matthew J. Lustig, Alan J. Patricof, Owen D. Thomas, Martin Turchin and David A. Twardock. All directors of BXP stand for election for one-year terms expiring at the next succeeding annual meeting of stockholders.

Joel I. Klein currently serves as the Lead Independent Director of BXP's Board of Directors. The Board of Directors of BXP also has Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees. The membership of each of these committees is described below.

On November 2, 2015, Congress enacted the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. Among other things, this Act changes the rules applicable to federal income tax audits of partnerships (such as BPLP) and the collection of any tax resulting from any such audits or other tax proceedings. Under the new rules, the partnership itself must pay any “imputed underpayments,” consisting of delinquent taxes, interest, and penalties deemed to arise out of an audit of the partnership, unless certain alternative methods are available and the partnership elects to utilize them.

The new rule generally does not apply to audits of taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018, and many of the details, including the means by which a partnership can avail itself of the alternative methods and the manner in which the alternative methods may apply to REITs, will be determined through Treasury Regulations. Proposed Treasury Regulations provide guidance as to how these rules apply to REITs, including clarification regarding the treatment of deficiency dividends. However, these regulations have not been finalized and the government has imposed an indefinite freeze on further regulatory action. Therefore, it is not clear at this time what effect this new legislation will have on us. However, it is possible that in the future, BXP or BPLP, or both, could be subject to, or otherwise bear the economic burden of, federal income tax, interest, and penalties resulting from a federal income tax audit as a result of the changes enacted by the Act.

On December 18, 2015, Congress enacted the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015. This legislation modifies a number of rules pertaining to qualification as a REIT and the taxation of REITs and their shareholders, including, among others, the following changes to certain rules described in the disclosure set forth in our prospectus:

Our economic performance and the value of our real estate assets, and consequently the value of our securities, are subject to the risk that if our properties do not generate revenues sufficient to meet our operating expenses, including debt service and capital expenditures, our cash flow and ability to pay distributions to our securityholders will be adversely affected. The following factors, among others, may adversely affect the income generated by our properties:

All of our revenue is derived from properties located in five markets: Boston, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC. A downturn in the economies of these markets, or the impact that a downturn in the overall national economy may have upon these economies, could result in reduced demand for office space and/or a reduction in rents. Because our portfolio consists primarily of office buildings (as compared to a more diversified real estate portfolio), a decrease in demand for office space in turn could adversely affect our results of operations. Additionally, there are submarkets within our markets that are dependent upon a limited number of industries. For example, in our Washington, DC market, we focus on leasing

In addition, a significant economic downturn over a period of time could result in an event or change in circumstances that results in an impairment in the value of our properties or our investments in unconsolidated joint ventures. An impairment loss is recognized if the carrying amount of the asset (1) is not recoverable over its expected holding period and (2) exceeds its fair value. There can be no assurance that we will not take charges in the future related to the impairment of our assets or investments. Any future impairment could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the charge is taken.

Our developed properties may be exposed to the following risks:

We operate, are currently developing, and may in the future develop, properties either alone or through joint ventures with other persons that are known as “mixed-use” developments. This means that in addition to the development of office space, the project may also include space for residential, retail, hotel or other commercial purposes. We have less experience in developing and managing non-office and non-retail real estate than we do with office real estate. As a result, if a development project includes a non-office or non-retail use, we may seek to develop that component ourselves, sell the rights to that component to a third-party developer with experience in that use or we may seek to partner with such a developer. If we do not sell the rights or partner with such a developer, or if we choose to develop the other component ourselves, we would be exposed not only to those risks typically associated with the development of commercial real estate generally, but also to

We face significant competition from developers, owners and operators of office and residential properties and other commercial real estate, including sublease space available from our tenants. Substantially all of our properties face competition from similar properties in the same market. This competition may affect our ability to attract and retain tenants and may reduce the rents we are able to charge. These competing properties may have vacancy rates higher than our properties, which may result in their owners being willing to lease available space at lower rates than the space in our properties.

We derive most of our income from rent received from our tenants. If a tenant experiences a downturn in its business or other types of financial distress, it may be unable to make timely rental payments. Also, when our tenants decide not to renew their leases or terminate early, we may not be able to re-let the space or there could be a substantial delay in re-letting the space. Even if tenants decide to renew or lease new space, the terms of renewals or new leases, including the cost of required renovations or concessions to tenants, may be less favorable to us than current lease terms. As a result, our cash flow could decrease and our ability to make distributions to our securityholders could be adversely affected.

The bankruptcy or insolvency of a major tenant may adversely affect the income produced by our properties. Our tenants could file for bankruptcy protection or become insolvent in the future. We cannot evict a tenant solely because of its bankruptcy. On the other hand, a bankrupt tenant may reject and terminate its lease with us. In such case, our claim against the bankrupt tenant for unpaid and future rent would be subject to a statutory cap that might be substantially less than the remaining rent actually owed under the lease, and, even so, our claim for unpaid rent would likely not be paid in full. This shortfall could adversely affect our cash flow and results of operations.

The mortgages on our properties contain customary covenants such as those that limit our ability, without the prior consent of the lender, to further mortgage the applicable property or to discontinue insurance coverage. Our unsecured credit facility, unsecured debt securities and certain secured loans contain customary restrictions, requirements and other limitations on our ability to incur indebtedness, including total debt to asset ratios, secured debt to total asset ratios, debt service coverage ratios and minimum ratios of unencumbered assets to unsecured debt, which we must maintain. Our continued ability to borrow under our credit facilities is subject to compliance with our financial and other covenants. In addition, our failure to comply with such covenants could cause a default under the applicable debt agreement, and we may then be required to repay such debt with capital from other sources. Under those circumstances, other sources of capital may not be available to us, or be

The following table presents Consolidated Market Capitalization as well as the corresponding ratios of Consolidated Debt to Consolidated Market Capitalization (dollars in thousands):

We have acquired in the past and in the future may acquire properties or portfolios of properties through tax deferred contribution transactions in exchange for partnership interests in BPLP. This acquisition structure has the effect, among others, of reducing the amount of tax depreciation we can deduct over the tax life of the acquired properties, and typically requires that we agree to protect the contributors’ ability to defer recognition of taxable gain through restrictions on our ability to dispose of the acquired properties and/or the allocation of partnership debt to the contributors to maintain their tax bases. These restrictions could limit our ability to sell an asset at a time, or on terms, that would be favorable absent such restrictions. 

Investments in international markets may also subject us to risks associated with funding increasing headcount, integrating new offices, and establishing effective controls and procedures to regulate the operations of new offices and to monitor compliance with U.S. laws and regulations such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar foreign laws and regulations, such as the U.K. Bribery Act.

Our ability to dispose of some of our properties is constrained by their tax attributes. Properties which we developed and have owned for a significant period of time or which we acquired through tax deferred contribution transactions in exchange for partnership interests in BPLP often have low tax bases. Furthermore, as a REIT, BXP may be subject to a 100% “prohibited transactions” tax on the gain from dispositions of property if BXP is deemed to hold the property primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business, unless the disposition qualifies under a safe harbor exception for properties that have been held for at least two years and with respect to which certain other requirements are met. The potential application of the prohibited transactions tax could cause us to forego potential dispositions of property or other opportunities that might otherwise be attractive to us, or to undertake such dispositions or other opportunities through a taxable REIT subsidiary, which would generally result in income taxes being incurred. If we dispose of these properties outright in taxable transactions, we may be required to distribute a significant amount of the taxable gain to our securityholders under the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code for REITs, which in turn would impact our future cash flow and may increase our leverage. In some cases, without incurring additional costs we may be restricted from disposing of properties contributed in exchange for our partnership interests under tax protection agreements with contributors. To dispose of low basis or tax-protected properties efficiently we from time to time use like-kind exchanges, which are intended to qualify for non-recognition of taxable gain, but can be difficult to consummate and result in the property for which the disposed assets are exchanged inheriting their low tax bases and other tax attributes (including tax protection covenants). 

Some holders of interests in BPLP could incur adverse tax consequences upon the sale of certain of our properties and on the repayment of related debt which differ from the tax consequences to BXP and its stockholders. Consequently, such holders of partnership interests in BPLP may have different objectives regarding the appropriate pricing and timing of any such sale or repayment of debt. While BXP has exclusive authority under the limited partnership agreement of BPLP to determine when to refinance or repay debt or whether, when, and on what terms to sell a property, subject, in the case of certain properties, to the contractual commitments described below, any such decision would require the approval of BXP’s Board of Directors. While the Board of Directors has a policy with respect to these matters directors and executive officers could exercise their influence in a manner inconsistent with the interests of some, or a majority, of BXP’s stockholders, including in a manner which could prevent completion of a sale of a property or the repayment of indebtedness.

We have entered into agreements with respect to some properties that we have acquired in exchange for partnership interests in BPLP. Pursuant to those agreements, we have agreed not to sell or otherwise transfer some of our properties, prior to specified dates, in any transaction that would trigger taxable income and we are responsible for the reimbursement of certain tax-related costs to the prior owners if the subject properties are sold in a taxable sale. In general, our obligations to the prior owners are limited in time and only apply to actual damages suffered.

In addition, because our hotel property is located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, it is subject to the Cambridge market’s fluctuations in demand, increases in operating costs and increased competition from additions in supply.

Investments in these securities and funds are not insured against loss of principal. Under certain circumstances we may be required to redeem all or part of our investment, and our right to redeem some or all of our investment may be delayed or suspended. In addition, there is no guarantee that our investments in these securities or funds will be redeemable at par value. A decline in the value of our investment or a delay or suspension of our right to redeem may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. 

Our Chief Financial Officer and Regional Managers also have strong reputations. Their reputations aid us in identifying opportunities, having opportunities brought to us, and negotiating with tenants and build-to-suit prospects. While we believe that we could find replacements for these key personnel, the loss of their services could materially and adversely affect our operations because of diminished relationships with lenders, prospective tenants and industry personnel. 

We carry insurance coverage on our properties, including those under development, of types and in amounts and with deductibles that we believe are in line with coverage customarily obtained by owners of similar properties. Certain properties owned in joint ventures with third parties are insured by the third party partner with insurance coverage of types and in amounts and with deductibles we believe are in line with coverage customarily obtained by owners of similar properties. In response to the uncertainty in the insurance market following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Federal Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (as amended, “TRIA”) was enacted in November 2002 to require regulated insurers to make available coverage for “certified” acts of terrorism (as defined by the statute). The expiration date of TRIA was extended to December 31, 2014 by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 and further extended to December 31, 2020 by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2015 (“TRIPRA”), and we can provide no assurance that it will be extended further. Currently, our property insurance program per occurrence limits are $1.0 billion for our portfolio insurance program, including coverage for acts of terrorism other than nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological terrorism (“Terrorism Coverage”). We also carry $250 million of Terrorism Coverage for 601 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York (“601 Lexington Avenue”) in excess of the $1.0 billion of coverage in our property insurance program. Certain properties, including the General Motors Building located at 767 Fifth Avenue in New York, New York (“767 Fifth Avenue”), are currently insured in separate insurance programs. The property insurance program per occurrence limits for 767 Fifth Avenue are $1.625 billion, including Terrorism Coverage. We also currently carry nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological terrorism insurance coverage for acts of terrorism certified under TRIA (“NBCR Coverage”), which is provided by IXP, as a direct insurer, for the properties in our portfolio, including 767 Fifth Avenue, but excluding certain other properties owned in joint ventures with third parties or which we manage. The per occurrence limit for NBCR Coverage is $1.0 billion. Under TRIA, after the payment of the required deductible and coinsurance, the NBCR Coverage provided by IXP is backstopped by the Federal Government if the aggregate industry insured losses resulting from a certified act of terrorism exceed a “program trigger.” In 2016, the program trigger was $120 million and the coinsurance was 16%, however, both will increase in subsequent years pursuant to TRIPRA. If the Federal Government pays out for a loss under TRIA, it is mandatory that the Federal Government recoup the full amount of the loss from insurers offering TRIA coverage after the payment of the loss pursuant to a formula in TRIPRA. We may elect to terminate the NBCR Coverage if the Federal Government seeks recoupment for losses paid under TRIA, if there is a change in our portfolio or for any other reason. We intend to continue to monitor the scope, nature and cost of available terrorism insurance and maintain terrorism insurance in amounts and on terms that are commercially reasonable.

We also currently carry earthquake insurance on our properties located in areas known to be subject to earthquakes in an amount and subject to self-insurance that we believe is commercially reasonable. In addition, this insurance is subject to a deductible in the amount of 3% of the value of the affected property. Specifically, we currently carry earthquake insurance which covers our San Francisco and Los Angeles regions (excluding Salesforce Tower) with a $170 million per occurrence limit and a $170 million annual aggregate limit, $20 million of which is provided by IXP, as a direct insurer. The builders risk

IXP, a captive insurance company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary, acts as a direct insurer with respect to a portion of our earthquake insurance coverage for our Greater San Francisco and Los Angeles properties and our NBCR Coverage. Insofar as we own IXP, we are responsible for its liquidity and capital resources, and the accounts of IXP are part of our consolidated financial statements. In particular, if a loss occurs which is covered by our NBCR Coverage but is less than the applicable program trigger under TRIA, IXP would be responsible for the full amount of the loss without any backstop by the Federal Government. IXP would also be responsible for any recoupment charges by the Federal Government in the event losses are paid out and its insurance policy is maintained after the payout by the Federal Government. If we experience a loss and IXP is required to pay under its insurance policy, we would ultimately record the loss to the extent of the required payment. Therefore, insurance coverage provided by IXP should not be considered as the equivalent of third-party insurance, but rather as a modified form of self-insurance. In addition, BPLP has issued a guarantee to cover liabilities of IXP in the amount of $20.0 million.

The mortgages on our properties typically contain requirements concerning the financial ratings of the insurers who provide policies covering the property. We provide the lenders on a regular basis with the identity of the insurance companies in our insurance programs. The ratings of some of our insurers are below the rating requirements in some of our loan agreements and the lenders for these loans could attempt to claim that an event of default has occurred under the loan. We believe we could obtain insurance with insurers which satisfy the rating requirements. Additionally, in the future, our ability to obtain debt financing secured by individual properties, or the terms of such financing, may be adversely affected if lenders generally insist on ratings for insurers or amounts of insurance which are difficult to obtain or which result in a commercially unreasonable premium. There can be no assurance that a deficiency in the financial ratings of one or more of our insurers will not have a material adverse effect on us.

We continue to monitor the state of the insurance market in general, and the scope and costs of coverage for acts of terrorism and California earthquake risk in particular, but we cannot anticipate what coverage will be available on commercially reasonable terms in future policy years. There are other types of losses, such as from wars, for which we cannot obtain insurance at all or at a reasonable cost. With respect to such losses and losses from acts of terrorism, earthquakes or other catastrophic events, if we experience a loss that is uninsured or that exceeds policy limits, we could lose the capital invested in the damaged properties, as well as the anticipated future revenues from those properties. Depending on the specific circumstances of each affected property, it is possible that we could be liable for mortgage indebtedness or other obligations related to the property. Any such loss could materially and adversely affect our business and financial condition and results of operations.

Pursuant to Executive Order 13224 and other laws, the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury (“OFAC”) maintains a list of persons designated as terrorists or who are otherwise blocked or banned (“Prohibited Persons”). OFAC regulations and other laws prohibit conducting business or engaging in transactions with Prohibited Persons (the “OFAC Requirements”). Certain of our loan and other agreements require us to comply with OFAC Requirements. We have established a compliance program whereby tenants and others with whom we conduct business are checked against the OFAC list of Prohibited Persons prior to entering into any agreement and on a periodic basis thereafter. Our leases and other agreements, in general, require the other party to comply with OFAC Requirements. If a tenant or other

Under federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, we may be required to investigate and clean up the effects of releases of hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products at or migrating from our properties simply because of our current or past ownership or operation of the real estate. If unidentified environmental problems arise, we may have to make substantial payments, which could adversely affect our cash flow and our ability to make distributions to our securityholders, because: as owner or operator we may have to pay for property damage and for investigation and clean-up costs incurred in connection with the contamination; the law typically imposes clean-up responsibility and liability regardless of whether the owner or operator knew of or caused the contamination; even if more than one person may be responsible for the contamination, each person who shares legal liability under the environmental laws may be held responsible for all of the clean-up costs; and governmental entities and third parties may sue the owner or operator of a contaminated site for damages and costs.

These costs could be substantial and in extreme cases could exceed the amount of our insurance or the value of the contaminated property. We currently carry environmental insurance in an amount and subject to deductibles that we believe are commercially reasonable. Specifically, we carry a pollution legal liability policy with a $20 million limit per incident and a policy aggregate limit of $40 million. The presence or migration of hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products or the failure to properly remediate contamination may give rise to third-party claims for bodily injury, property damage and/or response costs and may materially and adversely affect our ability to borrow against, sell or rent an affected property. In addition, applicable environmental laws create liens on contaminated sites in favor of the government for damages and costs it incurs in connection with contamination. Changes in laws, regulations and practices and their implementation increasing the potential liability for environmental conditions existing at our properties, or increasing the restrictions on the handling, storage or discharge of hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products or other actions may result in significant unanticipated expenditures.

Environmental laws also govern the presence, maintenance and removal of asbestos and other building materials. For example, laws require that owners or operators of buildings containing asbestos: 

Such laws may impose fines and penalties on building owners or operators who fail to comply with these requirements and may allow third parties to seek recovery from owners or operators for personal injury associated with exposure to asbestos fibers. 

Some of our properties are located in urban and previously developed areas where fill or current or historic industrial uses of the areas have caused site contamination. It is our policy to retain independent environmental consultants to conduct or update Phase I environmental site assessments and asbestos surveys with respect to our acquisition of properties. These assessments generally include a visual inspection of the properties and the surrounding areas, an examination of current and historical uses of the properties and the surrounding areas and a review of relevant state, federal and historical documents, but do not involve invasive techniques such as soil and ground water sampling. Where appropriate, on a property-by-property basis, our practice is to have these consultants conduct additional testing, including sampling for asbestos, for lead and other

Inquiries about indoor air quality may necessitate special investigation and, depending on the results, remediation beyond our regular indoor air quality testing and maintenance programs. Indoor air quality issues can stem from inadequate ventilation, chemical contaminants from indoor or outdoor sources, and biological contaminants such as molds, pollen, viruses and bacteria. Indoor exposure to chemical or biological contaminants above certain levels can be alleged to be connected to allergic reactions or other health effects and symptoms in susceptible individuals. If these conditions were to occur at one of our properties, we may be subject to third-party claims for personal injury, or may need to undertake a targeted remediation program, including without limitation, steps to increase indoor ventilation rates and eliminate sources of contaminants. Such remediation programs could be costly, necessitate the temporary relocation of some or all of the property’s tenants or require rehabilitation of the affected property. 

Any or all of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

We acquired many of our properties from our predecessors at the completion of BXP’s initial public offering in June 1997. Before we acquired these properties, each of them was insured by a title insurance policy. We did not obtain new owner’s title insurance policies in connection with the acquisition of these properties. To the extent we have financed properties after acquiring them in connection with the initial public offering, we have obtained new title insurance policies, however, the amount of these policies may be less than the current or future value of the applicable properties. Nevertheless, because in many instances we acquired these properties indirectly by acquiring ownership of the entity that owned the property and those owners remain in existence as our subsidiaries, some of these title insurance policies may continue to benefit us. Many of these title insurance policies may be for amounts less than the current or future values of the applicable properties. If there was a title defect related to any of these properties, or to any of the properties acquired at the time of the initial public offering of BXP, that is no longer covered by a title insurance policy, we could lose both our capital invested in and our anticipated profits from such property. We have obtained title insurance policies for all properties that we have acquired after the initial public offering of BXP, however, these policies may be for amounts less than the current or future values of the applicable properties. 

At any time, the U.S. federal income tax laws governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws may be amended, including with respect to our hotel ownership structure. We cannot predict if or when any new U.S. federal income tax law, regulation, or administrative interpretation, or any amendment to any existing U.S. federal income tax law, Treasury regulation or administrative interpretation, will be adopted, promulgated or become effective and any such law, regulation, or interpretation may take effect retroactively. BXP, its taxable REIT subsidiaries, and our securityholders could be adversely affected by any such change in, or any new, U.S. federal income tax law, Treasury regulation or administrative interpretation.

Members of the government have expressed an intent to pass legislation to fundamentally reform the tax code. Among other changes, the proposals have included significant changes to the taxation of business entities and the deductibility of interest expense. While there can be no assurance regarding the content of any tax legislation, whether it will ultimately be enacted, or when it will become effective, any such legislation could have a significant effect on BXP and our stockholders.

Because BXP is organized and qualifies as a REIT, it is generally not subject to federal income taxes, but we are subject to certain state and local taxes. In the normal course of business, certain entities through which we own real estate either have undergone, or are currently undergoing, tax audits. Although we believe that we have substantial arguments in favor of our positions in the ongoing audits, in some instances there is no controlling precedent or interpretive guidance on the specific point at issue. Collectively, tax deficiency notices received to date from the jurisdictions conducting the ongoing audits have not been material. However, there can be no assurance that future audits will not occur with increased frequency or that the ultimate result of such audits will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

From time to time changes in state and local tax laws or regulations are enacted, which may result in an increase in our tax liability. A shortfall in tax revenues for states and municipalities in which we operate may lead to an increase in the frequency and size of such changes. If such changes occur, we may be required to pay additional taxes on our assets or income. These increased tax costs could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations and the amount of cash available for the payment of dividends and distributions to our securityholders. 

Accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. Uncertainties posed by various initiatives of accounting standard-setting by the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which create and interpret applicable accounting standards for U.S.

In addition, if BXP fails to qualify as a REIT and the relief provisions do not apply, it will no longer be required to pay dividends. As a result of all these factors, BXP’s failure to qualify as a REIT could impair our ability to raise capital and expand our business, and it would adversely affect the value of BXP’s common stock. If BXP or any of its subsidiaries that are REITs fails to qualify as a REIT but is eligible for certain relief provisions, then it may retain its status as a REIT, but may be required to pay a penalty tax, which could be substantial. 

In order to maintain BXP’s REIT status, we may need to borrow funds on a short-term basis to meet the REIT distribution requirements, even if the then-prevailing market conditions are not favorable for these borrowings. To qualify as a REIT, BXP generally must distribute to its stockholders at least 90% of its taxable income each year, excluding capital gains and with certain other adjustments. In addition, BXP will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which dividends paid in any calendar year are less than the sum of 85% of ordinary income, 95% of capital gain net income and 100% of undistributed income from prior years. We may need short-term debt or long-term debt or proceeds from asset sales, creation of joint ventures or sales of common stock to fund required distributions as a result of differences in timing between the actual receipt of income and the recognition of income for federal income tax purposes, or the effect of non-deductible capital expenditures, the creation of reserves or required debt or amortization payments. The inability of our cash flows to cover our distribution requirements could have an adverse impact on our ability to raise short- and long-term debt or sell equity securities in order to fund distributions required to maintain BXP’s REIT status. 

BXP has a shareholder rights plan. Under the terms of this plan, BXP can in effect prevent a person or group from acquiring more than 15% of the outstanding shares of its common stock because, unless BXP’s Board of Directors approves of the acquisition, after the person acquires more than 15% of BXP’s outstanding common stock, all other stockholders will have the right to purchase securities from BXP at a price that is less than their then fair market value. This would substantially reduce the value and influence of the stock owned by the acquiring person. The Board of Directors of BXP can prevent the

The market value of BXP’s common stock is based primarily upon the market’s perception of our growth potential and our current and potential future earnings and cash dividends. Consequently, BXP’s common stock may trade at prices that are greater or less than BXP’s net asset value per share of common stock. If our future earnings or cash dividends are less than expected, it is likely that the market price of BXP’s common stock will diminish. 

The interests of our existing securityholders could be diluted if additional equity securities are issued to finance future developments, acquisitions or repay indebtedness. Our ability to execute our business strategy depends on our access to an appropriate blend of debt financing, including unsecured lines of credit and other forms of secured and unsecured debt, and equity financing, including common and preferred equity.

In connection with and subsequent to BXP’s initial public offering, we have completed many private placement transactions in which shares of stock of BXP or partnership interests in BPLP were issued to owners of properties we acquired or to institutional investors. This common stock, or common stock issuable in exchange for such partnership interests in BPLP, may be sold in the public securities markets over time under registration rights we granted to these investors. Additional common stock issuable under our employee benefit and other incentive plans, including as a result of the grant of stock options and restricted equity securities, may also be sold in the market at some time in the future. Future sales of BXP common stock in the market could adversely affect the price of its common stock. We cannot predict the effect the perception in the market that such sales may occur will have on the market price of BXP’s common stock. 

Our operating and financial policies, including our policies with respect to acquisitions of real estate, growth, operations, indebtedness, capitalization and dividends, are exclusively determined by BXP’s Board of Directors. Accordingly, our securityholders do not control these policies.

None.