National Retail Properties, Inc. (NYSE:NNN) Q1 2024 Earnings Call Transcript

National Retail Properties, Inc. (NYSE:NNN) Q1 2024 Earnings Call Transcript May 1, 2024

National Retail Properties, Inc. isn’t one of the 30 most popular stocks among hedge funds at the end of the third quarter (see the details here).

Operator: Greetings. Welcome to the NNN REIT, Inc. First Quarter 2024 Earnings Call. At this time all participants are in a listen-only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. [Operator Instructions] Please note, this conference is being recorded. I will now turn the conference over to your host, Steve Horn, Chief Executive Officer. You may begin.

Steve Horn: Thank you, Holly. Good morning, and welcome to NNN REIT’s first quarter 2024 earnings call. Joining me on the call is Chief Financial Officer, Kevin Habicht. As this morning’s press release reflects, the company’s performance to start 2024 produced strong results, including continued high occupancy and in line acquisition volume driven by our proprietary tenant relationships. We are in position to continue enhancing shareholder value as we move deeper into 2024 and beyond. Highlights of the first quarter results emphasize our continuous effort actively managing the portfolio. The portfolio of 3,546 freestanding single tenant properties continued to perform exceedingly well, maintained high occupancy levels at 99.4%, which remains above our long-term average at 98% plus or minus a fraction.

The leasing department had a terrific quarter, leasing seven assets to QSR and auto service tenants primarily, with a 91% rent recapture from the prior rent. This recapture is above historical levels of approximately 70%. Remember, NNN works hard not to give TI dollars to buy off rent. Currently, NNN only has 22 vacant assets in the portfolio, which is a testament to working with relationship tenants to maximize value for shareholders. During the quarter, we also sold six properties, which were all income producing, raising almost $19 million of proceeds to be reinvested in the new acquisitions. Over the course of the year, NNN sells assets defensively and proactively. But overall, we target the blended disposition cap rate to be 100 basis points lower than the deployment of capital pricing.

The last point on the portfolio I’d like to mention is with regard to 2024 lease expirations, which we originally had 90 for the year. As of the end of the quarter, there’s 39 left to handle, and I’m not expecting a departure from the norms, 85% renewal and 100% prior rent. Turning to acquisitions. During the quarter, we invested $125 million in 20 new properties at an initial cash cap rate of 8%. If we required a straight line, the GAAP rent would be 9.2% with an average lease duration of over 18 years. Eight of the deals were sub $5 million meaning we realized that deals, small deals can contribute to FFO per share growth. 12 of the 13 deals were from relationship tenants, which we do repeat business, creating a barrier to competition to solidify NNN’s deal flow.

It is this business model that allows the team to feel good about pipeline for second quarter. With regard to acquisition pricing environment, in the last quarter, our initial cash cap rate of 8% was approximately 40 basis points wider than the fourth quarter of 2023 and 100 basis points year over year. The 40 point increase was a result of NNN being top of mind, which created a window of opportunity to push pricing mid fourth quarter last year for the first quarter deal closing. NNN was in good position because of our calling effort and our strong balance sheet to take advantage of the opportunities. As I mentioned during the February call, we observed increasing cap rates, but as they sit today in May, the peers with the cap rate increase is starting to flatten.

I anticipate the second quarter pricing of 2024 to be similar to the first quarter pricing. This suggests cap rates are stabilizing as sellers feel lower cap rates maybe in the future. As sellers assume, the macroeconomic environment may improve and the higher for longer narrative dissipates in the near future. NNN will maintain acquisition volume through sale leaseback transactions with our stable tenants. Based on our pipeline and dialogue with our partners, we remain comfortable with our ability to meet and hopefully exceed 2024 acquisition guidance of $400 million to $500 million primarily through the sale leaseback deals on our release form. Our balance sheet remains one of the strongest in our sector. Our credit facility has plenty of capacity with only a balance outstanding of $116 million down from $130 million at year-end.

We just increased the capacity by $100 million to $1.2 billion this past month, so NNN is well-positioned to fund 2024 acquisition guidance. With that, let me turn the call over to Kevin for more color and detail on our quarterly numbers.

Kevin Habicht: Thanks, Steve. And as usual, I’ll start with a normal cautionary statement that we will make certain statements that may be considered to be forward-looking statements under federal securities law. The company’s actual future results may differ significantly from the matters discussed in these forward-looking statements, and we may not release revisions to these forward-looking statements to reflect changes after the statements were made. Factors and risks that could cause actual results to differ materially from expectations are disclosed from time-to-time in greater detail in the company’s filings with the SEC and in this morning’s press release. With that out of the way, so yes, headlines from this morning’s press release report quarterly core FFO results of $0.83 per share for the first quarter of 2024, and that’s up $0.03 or 3.8% over a year ago results of $0.80 per share.

AFFO results were $0.84 per share for the first quarter, which is $0.02 or 2.4% higher than year ago results. We did have unusually high lease termination fee income of $4.2 million in the first quarter and that compares with $1.7 million in the prior year first quarter. Over the past five years, we’ve averaged about $3 million of annual lease termination fee income. So this quarter’s $4.2 million was well above average. But even with that incremental income, overall, another good quarter and in line with our expectations. Occupancy was 99.4% at quarter end, as Steve mentioned. G&A expense came in at $12.6 million for the quarter. That’s up 2.7% versus prior year and represents 5.8% of revenues for the quarter, and again, in line with our guidance.

Our AFFO dividend payout ratio for the first quarter of 2024 was 67%. That resulted an approximately $50.6 million of free cash flow for the quarter after the payment of all expenses and dividends. We currently anticipate this free cash flow amount coming in at approximately $194 million for the full year of 2024. We ended the quarter with $831 million of annual base rent in place for all leases as of March 31, 2024. So that would take into account all acquisitions and dispositions completed during the quarter. Switching over to the balance sheet, couple of just little items. There was a small amount of equity issuance at a little over $42 a share, generating $21 million in net proceeds during the quarter. Shortly after quarter end, we completed a recast of our bank credit facility, increasing capacity by $100 million to $1.2 billion and extending the term out to April 2028.

There were no other material changes to the terms of that loan. We greatly appreciate the support of our bank group over many, many years. We maintain a good leverage and liquidity profile with over $1 billion of availability on our bank credit facility. As we’ve talked about maintaining our light capital market footprint, we’ve funded nearly 56% of our first quarter acquisitions of $124.5 million with free cash flow of the $50.6 million I mentioned and the $18.5 million of disposition proceeds. And then based on the midpoint of our acquisition and disposition guidance for 2024, we should fund close to 65% of 2024 acquisitions with free cash flow and disposition proceeds. Our weighted average debt maturity remains 11.8 years at quarter end, which will help us slow the refinance headwind that all companies are facing in the coming years.

Couple of stats. Net debt to gross book assets was 41.6%, debt to EBITDA was 5.5x at March 31st. Interest coverage and fixed charge coverage was 4.5x for the first quarter. And again, none of our properties are encumbered by mortgages. So we’re we remained focused on appropriately allocating capital, which to us means ensuring we are getting what we believe are appropriate returns on equity while controlling risk through property underwriting and maintaining a sound balance sheet. Valuing equity adequately, whether that equity is produced by free cash flow, disposition proceeds or new equity issuance is at the heart of growing per share results over the long-term in our opinion. So in closing, Q1 solid start to the year. We believe and we’re in relatively good position to navigate the uncertainties that are out there as we continue to focus on growing per share results.

And we are mindful this is a long-term multiyear endeavor as we think about our business. The fundamentals of the business remain in good shape. And with that, we will open it up to any questions, Holly. Thanks.

See also 15 Most Common Counterfeit Foods in the US and 25 Richest Billionaires in Technology Industry.

Q&A Session

Operator: [Operator Instructions] Your first question for today is from Joshua Dennerlein with Bank of America.

Joshua Dennerlein: Hey, guys. Thanks for the time and morning. Just wanted to go over what’s in guidance for the year. What do you guys assume as far as bad debt goes? And then is there any additional lease term fee income that you include in guidance?

Kevin Habicht: Yes. So as it relates to bad debt, we’ve assumed 100 basis points of loss — rent loss in our guidance. That’s what we typically do, and we’re not straying from that practice, nor trying to signal that we’re worried that it should be higher than that. Historically, our realized loss is some, less than that, meaning 30 to 50 basis points. And so it still feels like we’re kind of in that realm, if you will, of normal kind of collections on that front. In terms of lease termination fees, we didn’t have $4.2 million in our guidance for first quarter. We had we did have some amount but not that amount, not that much. And those things kind of come up a little bit more sporadically. And so historically, on a longer term project, meaning a full year projection, 12, 15-months out into the future, we don’t assume very much of that happening.

And so it really comes about by a function of just kind of working the portfolio as we come across particular cases of particular properties and particular circumstances that there’s an opportunity to create some value via lease termination income possibility, then we pursue it. And so, we understand that it’s lumpy, and it’s not particularly annuities. Like I said, we typically run around $3 million a year. So in some sense, it has some degree of regularity to it, but it varies quarter-to-quarter. And to answer your question, we have — we assume we’ll get some more this year just because we always assume we’ll get some more, but we don’t give any guidance around that just because it’s a little too tough to predict.

Joshua Dennerlein: Appreciate that color. And then, sorry if I missed it, but did you say what the lease term fee related to, like what tenant?

Kevin Habicht: No. Yes, we really I mean, we’re not rather not get into the details of that, but it’s — we think it’s value enhancing activity for us. And so it always involves a tenant and either potentially a new tenant or potentially buyer of the property. And so it’s a bit of a three tri-party kind of negotiation we’re trying to work out. But yes, we don’t planning to go in the details on which tenant or tenants. And usually, it’s not just one, it’s one or two or three that were have some level of dialogue with on that front. And like I said, the amount is going to be small, the amount is going to be larger. But yes, we don’t have any details to give you on that.

Joshua Dennerlein: And then maybe if I could just sneak one more in. Just on the top tenants, it’s awesome like looks like friction has sold or closed some stores recently. What’s the latest with them? And are you guys having any dialogue with them on potentially closing stores?

Kevin Habicht: Yes. So I mean, we’ve talked about Frisch’s on our Watch list. They have been for a period of time. We don’t have any news to report there. There’s no rumblings of restructuring per se. In our mind, it conforms somewhat to our history of any tenants that have some challenges. It’s kind of the 8/20 rule, where 80% of the stores are fine and 20% have challenges. And so those are the ones, I think, that they just need to get to work on. And I think that’s the case with them as well. And so, but yes, no news there. And so we’re just kind of working through that with time and don’t really have anything new to report. Yes. Just kind of carrying out that thought. Yes, we’re working with all our tenants if they want to work on a site to get out of there or what may be the reason. And for sure, we’re working day-to-day with them, but today is the first and rent is due.

Operator: Your next question is from Brad Heffern with RBC Capital Markets.

Brad Heffern: Kevin, on that lease termination commentary, I’m not sure I really understood that. So are you saying that you proactively reach out to tenants and suggest that they might want to terminate their leases, so that you can re lease the properties or sell them to someone else? Or can you just explain how that works?

Kevin Habicht: Yes. Every circumstance is different. And so it varies all over the lot. And so because we get store level performance, we know how stores are performing or not performing. And so it’s a potential and we’re in dialogue with our tenants, and so we know, have a feel for what their thoughts are as it relates to particular properties. And so we’re just actively involved with our tenants and the properties. And if there’s an economic a good economic outcome that might include lease termination income, then we’re going to pursue it despite that the, it’s not annuitant income, but we’re not going to turn our back on it because it’s not. But it’s really case by case specific, and the devil is always in the details. But it comes from working the portfolio, maintaining relationships with tenants and trying to extract value from 3,500 properties as best we can.

Brad Heffern: And then you talked about Frisch’s, but can you go through the others on the watch list? I’m specifically wondering about Jona’s, but a quick sound bite on the usual suspects would be great too.

Kevin Habicht: Yes. And the size and composition of the list really hasn’t changed. We’ve talked about Frisch’s in recent quarters. We’ve obviously everybody’s talked about theaters for many, many quarters. And we’ve mentioned, Jona’s, which did file for bankruptcy, we only had two stores with them. So it’s a less than 0.1% tenant of ours. And they have since kind of worked through actually that bankruptcy process and both of our stores will be affirmed, those leases will be affirmed. And so we’re not looking at any loss exposure there. The other ones we’ve mentioned in recent quarters is big lots. Again, we have three stores. We’ll see where that goes, 0.1% kind of tenant. We’ve talked about at home stores, which is a larger exposure for us at 1.1% of our rent.

We have 12 stores with them. And the challenge with those potentially is that they’re just bigger boxes. So if you get one of those back, it’s a little more work. But again, they’re current on rent, and it feels like they have some runway to continue with that. So we don’t have any news to really report on that. Those are the names we’ve kind of talked about in recent quarters that haven’t changed and the situations don’t feel like they’ve changed notably.

Operator: Your next question is coming from Smedes Rose with Citi.

Smedes Rose: We were just wondering, I think you have some debt maturities coming up later this year. Just wondering what are you assuming in your guidance around those maturities?

Kevin Habicht: Yes. I mean, we don’t give any guidance on capital markets activities, but I’ll say this. We have optionality, and so we love that. And so that’s one of the things we try to position our balance sheet to create that optionality. And so meaning, we can issue debt long-term 10-year. We’ve not issued anything less than 10 years in my tenure here. And so today that would be kind of priced in the mid to high 5s. And but we also could park it on our bank line because we have such availability there for a period of months. We could leave it there if we had a view that maybe rates would be ticking lower later. So that would be an option and that cost today is, call it, in the low 6s. And so there’s not a huge material cost difference at the moment between 10-year debt and our bank line. And so whichever option we end up choosing won’t have much impact on the bottom line between those two alternatives. So we’ll see how that plays out and stay tuned.

Smedes Rose: And I just wanted to ask kind of sort of bigger picture. When you’re out looking at acquisition opportunities? Any change in kind of the pool of other providers of capital or where you maybe feel like you have a distinct advantage relative to them or things sort of eroding on that side or maybe just you could just sort of speak to that?

Steve Horn: On the acquisition side, we’re really mining with our current portfolio. The vast majority of the acquisition volume has come from our current tenant roster. And our current tenant roster believes in the sale leaseback model, not owning the real estate. So they’re not really out there looking for other sources of capital that we’re competing against. They’re just looking at sale leaseback providers and what the going rate is. So yes, no, we’re not seeing any other buckets of money coming into our sector for what we’re looking to do. Now if we had to do $1.5 billion or $2 billion we would probably have more competition. But at current guidance, we’re not seeing any competition hindering our ability to execute.

Operator: Your next question for today is from Spenser Allaway with Green Street.

Spenser Allaway: Maybe just continuing on the tenant health topic, and Kevin, you mentioned receiving unit level operations. Can you just comment on whether there have been any changes to rent coverage levels, or if there’s been anything notable that’s come up in negotiations with tenants in recent months?

Kevin Habicht: Yes. No, the answer is no. I mean, there’s been a little bit of softening in coverages, but not notable. And so, so far, our tenants really have been able to generally hang in there, if you will, and maintain a reasonable margin, if you will. And so from an ability to pay rent standpoint, it’s our concerns have not grown at all. And so we still feel good on that front.

Spenser Allaway: And then specifically on the property insurance side, and I realize your tenants bear that cost, but just given the spikes in insurance premiums nationwide, is this something that’s been brought to your attention in terms of this line item becoming burdensome at all for any kind of?

Kevin Habicht: I mean, we’re aware of that issue, but yes. But we’re not hearing that as a big impact on their business. I mean, for many of our tenants rent, I mean rent is a real expense, but it’s not the driver of their profitability and property insurance to a lesser degree. And because we deal with tenants, they operate 100 if not 1,000 of stores. They generally are pretty sharp on getting those coverages, the property insurance coverages across a large number of properties. And so I think that helps them a bit at the margin to get reasonable kind of rate there as best they can be. But yes, the whole property insurance market is hardened up a bit.

Spenser Allaway: And then last one for me. I know you mentioned the 22 vacant assets, and sorry if I missed this, but have you guys kind of laid out a plan yet in terms of which portion or like what portion of the 22 assets have been earmarked for sale versus re tenanting or can you just provide some commentary on the plan for those assets?

Steve Horn: So out of the 22, they’re all earmarked for re tenanting. That’s the first thing we always try to do. Then after a certain time frame, if we’re not getting acceptable rental rates. At the end of the day, we just do a present value analysis, retenant it, sell it, scrape and rebuild it. And truth be told, more times than not, the economic decision is you would sell a vacant asset because of the time delay to get the new tenant into it. But yes, we first always try to get the reoccurring revenue by re tenanting it.

Operator: Your next question is from Linda Tsai with Jefferies.

Linda Tsai: Can you talk a little bit more about what you’re seeing on the QSR and automotive services front in terms of cap rate expansion?

Steve Horn: Yes. I mean given we had an 8 cap, cash cap rate for the quarter and auto we did a little bit more auto services this past quarter that we’re seeing the bandwidth is pretty tight around the 8%, I mean, high 7s, low 8s, is what we’re seeing currently in today’s market, in car wash and kind of collision repair in the car auto service sector. But all cap rates, just on the sequential increase we’ve had really for five straight quarters, that we’re starting to see the 8%. Now do I see it going above 8% for the second quarter, I think it’s right at there, the pricing is on top of the first quarter. Or too far out, Linda, for the third and fourth quarter. But if the higher for longer narrative continues, I would expect to see an 8% in the third quarter as well.

Linda Tsai: And then just for any tenants on cash basis, does that include Frisch’s, AMC, At Home, Big Lots?

Steve Horn: Yes. It includes AMC and Frisch’s. Those are the primary ones.

Linda Tsai: But at home is not really something that we’re…?

Steve Horn: No. I mean, it is a judgment call. And to be honest, it’s something we look at quarterly, and we evaluate, we’re not adverse, to be quite honest, candid about putting tenants on cash basis, I think, is a better accounting method. But right now, it’s about 5% our tenants, which is mostly AMC and Frisch’s makeup that cash basis.