Good afternoon, and welcome to the Alexandria Real Estate Equities First Quarter 2022 Conference Call. Please note, this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Paula Schwartz of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone. This conference call contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. The company's actual results might differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. Additional information concerning factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements is contained in the company's periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. And now I would like to turn the call over to Joel Marcus, Executive Chairman and Founder. Please go ahead, Joel.

Thank you, Paula, and welcome, everybody, to today's call, April 26, 2022, previewing or highlighting our first quarter. And I want to also let everybody know with me today are Dean Shigenaga, Peter Moglia and Stephen Richardson. I want to make a shout-out happy birthday to someone very special listening here today. I want to welcome and thank you for joining our first quarter earnings call, and want to wish everyone got blessings and just watching the war in Ukraine gives us pause to appreciate everything we have. The good to great author, Jim Collins has spoken about Alexandria. We have achieved 3 outputs that define a great company: superior results, distinctive impact and lasting endurance. And I want to congratulate the entire Alexandria family team on a first quarter earnings performance really by all metrics exemplifying Alexandria exceptionalism at its finest. Our -- in fact, as Jim Collins said, our superior performance. I want to thank the entire family team as well for what they do each and every day for this mission-driven company, profoundly committed to driving forward our distinctive impact approach to address some of society's most pressing challenges through our long-standing bedrock social responsibility pillars. As Jim said, our distinctive impact, and we have worked in these pillars, accelerating ground breaking research, medical research, harnessing the agro food ecosystem to combat hunger, empowering underserved students to achieve long-term success, bolstering the resilience of our military, conquering the opioid epidemic, building a model for comprehensive and sustainable solutions to address homelessness, one of our newest programs, addressing the mental health crisis with a focus on helping children cope with suicide loss, another new focus, and supporting museums to preserve our history and honor our greatest heros, also a new focused pillar. I want to also share that…

Thank you, Joel, and good afternoon, everybody. Steve Richardson here. As we bring Q1 2022 to a close, I'd like to highlight 2 critical factors driving the continued momentum and success of Alexandria. One is the demand for Alexandria's unique and highly differentiated facilities. Operational excellence services and mega campus offerings continues at a very COVID and post-COVID level, with leasing during Q1 totaling 2.5 million square feet. And within that total, 1.4 million square feet in our development and redevelopment pipeline. This activity is the second highest quarterly leasing volume in company history in each of these 2 categories following historically high leasing during 2021 and particularly Q4 2021. And two, importantly, the exceptional quality and long-term nature of Alexandria's leasing results overall and especially this quarter, is truly noteworthy in 1 to double underline. We signed a long-term lease for a ground-up Class A laboratory office flagship facility comprising 427,000 rentable square feet with Bristol-Myers Squibb a company with a market cap of $164 billion as they chose Alexandria to design, build and operate their mission-critical innovative research hub at our Campus Point Mega campus. Let me just say that this type of outcome is the result of Alexandria's historic pioneering efforts in establishing the life science asset class, we started working with BMS during 1998 some 24 years ago and began building trust and confidence at every level of the organization. Bristol-Myers Squibb is now our top tenant and present in 5 of Alexandria's core clusters, a truly unique partnership and a distinct and compelling competitive advantage. The entirety of Alexandria's brand value and BMS's decision to select Alexandria was crystallized with this inspiring achievement. First, a deep and meaningful trusted and mutually respectful historical relationship with further cemented. Second, the unique ability to scale a facility…

Thank you, Steve. I'm going to update you all on the value creation pipeline, discuss the continuation of construction costs and supply chain macro issues and comment on the 100 Binney disposition. Leveraging our unique market industry insights and the proven expertise of our best-in-class team, our value creation pipeline is tactically broadening our core clusters to meet the needs of our world-class tenant roster. Reflecting the continuing strong demand referenced in Steve's comments, and our ability to capture it due to our trusted brand, AAA locations, inspiring aesthetics, operational excellence, curated amenities and capability to elevate the tenant experience, our value creation pipeline of projects that are either under construction or expected to commence construction in the next 6 quarters has increased to 8 million square feet that is projected to add more than $665 million in annual rental revenue, primarily commencing from the second quarter of this year through the first quarter of '25, a $55 million increase over what was discussed last quarter. As of quarter end, 77% of this remarkable pipeline was either leased or under negotiation, which means we have an executed LOI. With an astounding 94% of the activity coming from existing relationships, highlighting the incredible loyalty to our stellar brand. Our tenant base is an award for talent and recognize that space at an Alexandria's campus is mission-critical in that fight. Without question, our ability to offer our tenant-based scalability and comprehensive amenity offerings through our mega campuses is a truly unique differentiator and why Alexandria is the clear choice to provide mission-critical facilities to the life science industry's most innovative and successful companies. During the first quarter, we delivered 566,655 square feet from 10 projects located in 8 different submarkets, reflecting the diversity of our pipeline made possible by strong demand across…

Thanks, Peter. Dean Shigenaga here. Good afternoon, everyone. We reported very strong operating and financial results for the first quarter of 2022, highlighting that we are off to a great start and on track for 8% plus growth in FFO per share. Now this is impressive considering the consistency of bottom-line growth year after year and following the historic year in 2021 of operating and financial performance and significant achievement of historic milestones. We reported first quarter 2022 revenues of $576.9 million or $2.3 billion annualized, up 24.4% over the first quarter of '21, and NOI was up 22.7% over the first quarter of '21, highlighting very strong growth and outstanding execution by our team. Bottom line, we beat consensus this quarter and raised our outlook for FFO per share growth to 8%. More on this in a moment. Alexandria has tremendous scale in key innovation cluster submarkets across the country that allows us to provide optionality for innovative life science entities looking for high-quality laboratory space from a trusted partner. We have a very high quality and diverse tenant roster consisting of over 1,000 tenants that provides Alexandria a unique and strong position to address current and expansion space requirements. We continue to reap the benefits from these attributes as shown in our continued strong operating and financial results. We generated a REIT industry-leading adjusted EBITDA margin of 71%, highlighting highly efficient execution by our team. Occupancy was up 70 basis points to 94.7% since December 31, and our team is on track to achieve our exceptional growth in occupancy by the end of 2022 of 150 basis points in comparison to 12/31/21. Now the key takeaway from our leasing activity in the first quarter beyond achieving the second highest leasing volume in the company's history, is that the…

So with that, operator, if we could open it up to questions.

And our first question will come from Jamie Feldman of Bank of America.

So I guess just a big picture here. There's been a lot of concern on the biotech funding outlook in light of capital markets volatility. It's sort the CRO stocks at the life science stocks. Can you just give us your latest thoughts on how this might be impacting demand, the funding backdrop, any signs of weakness in areas? And then also, just thinking about leasing timing, are you seeing any delay in lease decision-making? Just how should we be thinking about reading the tea lease here?

Yes, Jamie, thanks for the question. I think what I said in the prepared remarks is I think how you should frame the cornerstone and kind of bedrock demand situation; I think you've got haves and have not. So the have nots, as I said, our company's public companies by and large because most private companies are generally well financed and the venture firms have raised mountains of capital. So they've got pretty long runways. But I think people who've gone public and some of who went public too soon, are caught in a bit of a squeeze with cash burn, either if they're preclinical or somewhat into the clinic at various stages and maybe don't have early readouts of data. And so, for those, I think you can expect they will not be on track to expand. And in fact, some will contract and reduce their workforce and maybe their space. We've seen some of that in different markets. But I think it's fair to say that the haves are those companies that are the big cap companies, big pharma, plus the companies that have reached commercial stage are really very flush with cash, and we see no real change in growth trajectories of those companies plus many in the private side who've raised massive amounts of cash. So I think you're going to find that operators who have leased to, and I can think of 1 group in Boston who lease to a variety, thank goodness, not us, of course, lease in new construction, lease to a variety of companies that are in the clinical stage, they're seeing -- I can think of this 1 building, I won't say who the operator is, so I don't -- it's not in Cambridge, it's out in the burbs. But they're going to see many of their tenants either sublease or try to give space back. So I think it's a tale of 2 worlds and luckily, we're, I think, extremely well positioned in that. Hello, operator?

Next question comes from Sheila McGrath of Evercore.

I was wondering if you could provide a little bit more detail on the partial sale where in-place rents might have compared to market and the weighted average lease term in that building? And was the pricing set before the shift in interest rates or just on the timing there?

Yes. So Peter, do you want to handle that?

Yes, sure. No, the pricing was set during the heat of everything, the war, interest rate volatility. So it is reflective of today's market conditions. The -- I don't know what the -- I don't have the memorized, but just looking at the top 2 leases, it was very likely close to 10 years, probably maybe 9. So definitely a long time before you realize any upside. And there is upside there probably somewhere in the neighborhood of about 27%, 28%. The rents were overall below market. But again, I think the price is reflective of the fact that someone is going to have to live with that return for a while. The credit there was really good. So there's nothing to worry about. But it was a very fair price considering the amount of demand is looking for high-quality projects, and that was probably the most high-quality project anyone could have found this year.

Yes. I mean, perfect tremendous location in the heart of Cambridge, brand-new construction more or less. And as Peter said, pretty good lease duration with very strong credit. So a real iconic, I think, investment.

Okay. That's great. And then just curious, inflation everybody, is talking about it. Wondering like when you look at new projects, would you consider most of your leases are with 3% escalators. Would you consider having a minimum with tied to inflation or that's just not the market?

Yes. So I'll come in and then maybe ask Steve and Peter to comment. So over the history of Alexandria, we've kept kind of 2 approaches. One has been annual rental escalations, generally 3%, sometimes a little less, sometimes it's more, but average about 3%. And during different time periods, we have gone to a minimum, maximum of minimum 3 and max 6 based on CPI. We are involved in a number of negotiations where those -- both of those are being discussed, and you will likely see some of those over time. But I don't know, Peter or Steve, if you guys have any other color on that.

Yes. Joel, just to echo that, it's Steve, Sheila. That's exactly what we're doing. And we're being very targeted and thoughtful with the particular segments of the portfolio that we might do that for. So we think it's going to be very fair and reasonable. And so far, it's been understood and well received. So just at the beginning of the process here.

The next question comes from Manny Korchman of Citi.

Peter, maybe 1 for you. Just as you think about which assets you want to keep, you guys have used the term iconic when referring to 100 Binney, how do you think about keeping iconic assets versus selling iconic assets? And especially in a market like that, that is so supply constrained, part of me wants to say why not keep the longer-term upside there, and part of it is you're getting a 3.5% cap rate. So how do you weigh all that?

Yes. I mean as you said on the latter part of your comments, I mean being able to take advantage of market conditions where you can get a sub-4 cap rate and then plug that back into your next iconic asset at a 6 plus, it's just -- it's hard not to do that. And remember, we are keeping a pretty material part of each of these assets that we're selling. We are also accrue fees. And so there's some operating leverage that we can achieve there. So it is -- you look at the market, you see what you can monetize at the best price. And you only make that decision, though, if you have opportunities to reinvest that in something that's special. And if you look at our development pipeline today, we think it is full of the next wave of iconic assets. So we don't want to get too in love with things that are legacy. We appreciate them. We, again, don't sell them in whole, but there are other frontiers for us to conquer, and such as the Fenway where we believe there's going to be an incredible rent growth and appreciation as well. So we need to get the cash to make those accretive investments, and we pick carefully, but strategically.

And then maybe on that deal specifically, how much was about managing tenant risk, if at all, with selling BSM and then having new projects with BSM coming in at the same time. I'm sorry, the tenant risk with BMS? Was a bit about managing your Bristol-Myers exposure? Or did that not --

Not at all. Not at all.

The next question comes from Rich Anderson of SMBC.

So on the topic of dispositions, as much as $2.6 billion potentially this year. Last year, you had a whole lot of activity at the end of the year. year before, I think you did about $1 billion. So you're clearly identifying with some opportunities to raise capital in that format. But with rising interest rates and all that talk, do you think 2022 will be more of a ratable sort of level of dispositions across the year? Or do you think it could still be lumped towards the back half of the year, maybe in the sense of urgency to get some things done before just rates perhaps do play a role on cap rates?

Dean, you want to --

Rich, maybe it's helpful to look back to last year, just to give some context to the late year transactions. And you might recall our commentary over the last few quarters. The reason why we had a number of transactions really weighted into December last year had everything to do with specific leases that were significant to the transactions being extended and it was super important to complete that before we went out and got deep in the marketing of the underlying asset for sale. And so a number of those transactions had that aspect, which delayed the transaction for execution until later in the year, but it was an important component to the valuation as well. So as you can imagine, important to get done. This year, we don't have that same issue across the transactions we're looking at today. So I think you'll see it be a little bit more spread out through the year than you did last year by far. We don't have those same challenges this year, Rich.

Okay. Great. And, Joel, you mentioned your haves and have nots comment. But one name that jumped out to me when speaking internally with my -- our biotech team was a name like Novartis, which is kind of registers as 1 larger cap name in your top 10 that is seeing some significant layoffs. I'm curious if you guys have any comment about their situation specifically as it relates to demand? And any examples of larger cap names that despite your comments might also be considering some significant levels of employee reduction.

Well, I mean, Novartis is one of the strongest, certainly, pharma companies in the world and certainly one of the strongest companies in the world. All companies of large size, as you know, from your long history in this industry go through rationalizations of different groups. I mean, Glaxo is an example, sold their oncology group at 1 point, which was a core, seemed to me to be kind of an odd thing to do. And then later on, essentially kind of restarted it. Different people are shuffling around different lines of businesses whether they be high-value ethical pharmaceuticals or more commodity-type products. So I think I would view that as having nothing to do with the the industry itself, the state of the industry at this point, but rather a rationalization of that company's own operations. And whenever you get a new CEO or a change, a number of these companies kind of shift focus. And so that's something else that you're seeing from time to time. But I wouldn't read anything into that in particular.

Okay. And then real quick, Peter, I think, as you said -- or maybe it was even Joel that said development yields are modestly -- development yields are modestly up for you. I assume that's not a comment generally about the industry. So do you have a sense, based on all the things you talked about, about delays about how far down development yields have come for your competition, not so much you?

Joel, do you want me to take that?

Yes, please.

Yes, Rich, the -- I think we -- just getting back to my comments, our team has done an incredible job in helping to mitigate cost escalations. And locking things in early. And so because of that and because of the rent growth that we've experienced in all of our markets, we've been able to marginally increase our yields, as Joel mentioned. I -- what other people are doing, I'm not sure. They don't -- certainly don't have the scale advantage that we have, the relationships that we have, probably not even close to the personnel we have. So I'd imagine that they wouldn't be able to do the same thing.

Our next question comes from Dave Rodgers of Baird.

Just again, with your comments about maybe recession as well as the have not. Maybe this question is for Peter. Is there anywhere on the life science investment sales spectrum that's being impacted by those types of comments or by interest rates and spreads? And I guess I'm just trying to get a better understanding if there's other competitive assets where maybe we're just not seeing enough of a spread between what's trading, and any examples you might have off the top of your head?

I can tell you, I mean I was looking at our comp database yesterday, just seeing what changed from quarter-to-quarter. There's -- a lot of things are still trading with the quality of tenancies completely all over the place, and things are getting for cap rates or more just a certain portfolio that BioMed sold in San Diego with a lot of cats and dogs was a sub-5 cap rate. So there is a lot of demand for exposure to life science assets. And so, unfortunately, for a number of investors, tenant quality probably hasn't been the focus. But we -- rest assured anyone who is looking at our portfolio, we -- our tenants are highly vetted and that doesn't become a question. It's more about the location and lease expiration. Tenant quality is usually soon to be great because it is.

And then maybe just 1 follow-up question. I don't hope this is for Dean or maybe Steve, but it looks like Apple and Alphabet joined the top tenant list. I don't know if that was a function of acquisitions or perhaps sales or just new leases there, but they had some shorter duration. So I was curious if those were added and if those were kind of intermediate term redevelopment opportunities or just kind of good stand-alone investments?

Yes, this is Joel. Yes. The answer is yes and yes.

Next question comes from Michael Carroll of RBC Capital Markets.

Just real quick back on to the have nots. I think Joel, you were mentioning that there might be some have nots to have to give back space in the suburban markets of Boston. I mean how much of that could come back to the market? Is it big enough to alter any of these markets where you could see vacancy rates kind of uptick? Or is it just more of a one-off type thing?

Yes. I don't think it's -- we haven't seen any sign that it's a material impact, and we'll monitor that quarter-to-quarter. So I think, right now, it's pretty building and location specific and, obviously, tenant specific. But we haven't seen anything that I would say material as an overall trend at this time.

Okay. And then related to the have nots. I mean, I think in your prepared remarks, you said is basically companies that went public too quickly. What about the small to mid-cap private companies that you kind of indicated? Did they raise enough equity or capital, so they're really not an issue? Or is it more a muddle than that? It's kind of depending on the company that we're talking about?

Yes. So certainly, not all companies I would put in, they went to -- went public too early. I would probably put those on preclinical. So if you've not even entered the clinic, and you're going public, probably that's too early. I mean it's obviously case-specific, depends on what the technology is, what the opportunity is, what your shareholder base is from the private side and so forth. But by and large, there's a host of those that were preclinical that just went too early, maybe grew too fast and realized they still got the clinical ahead of them. And then those that went public in the clinic, I think that's generally been a good game plan, but then didn't realize that after 9 years, I mean, I've been saying that for a while, a 9-year bull market in the sector just doesn't continue unabated. So it tends to rationalize itself. And as I said, 5x the capital volume was being raised and kind of went into the industry, which is a lot. On the private side, as I say, many -- I mean, again, it's very case specific, but many of the companies who have blue-chip founder groups or investor groups who've raised large pools of money have good runway. So generally, a lot of those are not going to suffer maybe some of the challenges that may face a host of the public companies in the have-not sector, if you will.

Okay. Great. And then just last 1 for me. Steve, you kind of highlighted in your prepared remarks that there's no projects under construction that will be delivered in 2024 at least as of now. I mean, when would a developer actually need a break ground or go vertical to achieve the 2024 delivery date? Do they have another, what, 6-plus months or so? Is that kind of fair to say?

Michael, it's Steve. Yes, I think it's within that window. And the key is whether someone is going to actually start doing that and going vertical to deliver in that time frame. And what we've really done is drill down to the capital behind these operators. Obviously, the operators are going to be positive and bullish. But we just haven't seen that from the capital sources actually committing capital as of today.

Next question comes from Daniel Ismail of Green Street Advisors.

Great. Maybe going back to 100 Binney Street and the cap rate compression in Cambridge. I'm curious if you're seeing a similar level of price appreciation across markets, or are any markets accelerating? Or maybe moving slower than that clip you guys you're seeing in Cambridge?

Well, yes, I'll ask maybe Peter and Steve. I would say, on your end, I think you guys need to revisit our NAV. I think you guys are off. But in any case, I think it's -- when you look at Binney, Binney is in the heart of the Kendall Square and Cambridge epicenter. So the cap rate there is not real surprising for relatively new construction, high credit quality and just an iconic location and building. And I think you can see across most of our markets, cap rates have held, I think, very strong and continue to be very positive in our favor. But I'd ask Steve and Peter to comment more detailed. Yes.

Yes. This is Peter. All the markets where there -- I guess, said another way, none of the markets we're in would have a cap rate that would have anything greater than a handle on it, which is, as you know, remarkably different from a couple of years ago when people were thinking certain markets had 6% or 7%. Some of those markets now are in the 4s or 5s. So I would generally just say, as Joel mentioned, Cambridge is a special place. There are going to be a few submarkets where you probably go below 4% to the mid-3s like we just did. But who knows? I mean there's certainly a lot of money chasing these assets and the competition for high-quality assets, when the investors are thinking, "Hey, there's great rent growth here. I'll pay the price for it today," who knows? We could certainly see breaking through 4% in other markets. But in general, cap rates for lab are like industrial, like logistics, storage or apartments. I mean it's just a hot industry. There's a lot of money out there to be invested and they want to bet on winners and winners are expenses.

Maybe the last point, I'm curious across those property sectors you mentioned, we've been noticing cap rates go either at or below borrowing costs. And I'm curious if that's a similar dynamic you're noticing across life science as well. I assume 100 Binney is -- I believe it's unencumbered, but I would assume that the debt would be closer to that cash cap rate or if not a smidge below?

Well, you bring up a good a good point that actually we don't really talk about too much. But I mean, yes, our large partial interest sales are done with partners that are not buying with leverage. So they're putting this money to work and not looking to lever it up. They're accepting these returns. -- frankly, we don't go into the secured market and buy anything on a levered basis. So kind of hard for me to comment, but I would imagine just seeing where rates are today, that negative leverage is probably the only leverage available if you want to buy a really high-quality asset.

Great. And then maybe just last 1 for me. On the Mercer Mega Block, can you remind us if the plan was always to bring in a partner? And if so, why not retain the entirety of that development for ARE?

Yes. Peter, you could comment.

Sure. We have a strategic partner in a couple of nearby assets that made a lot of sense for them to participate with us. I can't really go into the details. They'll become apparent later on. But this is a partner that is -- we're in multiple markets with. They have a lot of trust in us. They're a great source of capital that's very attractive compared to common, and they were highly interested in getting involved, and we're keeping the majority share there, but it's also a good opportunity for us to finance something upfront rather than after the fact to keep the capital flowing to other projects as well.

I would also say we've seen great activity with credit tenants in that -- for that location.

The next question is a follow-up from Jamie Feldman of Bank of America.

I appreciate your color on the construction pipeline, breaking out '23, '24 and beyond. Would you say that your appetite for speculative has changed at all in the last 6 months or so or even the last 3 months, just given it seems to be a growing pipeline and maybe more questions on the demand side?

Well, I think, Jamie, somebody mentioned, I don't know, or if not, we haven't really done speculative development since before the '08-'09 crisis when we were forced under contract in New York. We're building 2 towers. We stop one after Lehman collapsed, we built the East Tower. And then luckily, we secured Eli Lilly is our anchor tenant there. But we haven't generally built specs since then. And when we tend to put up, if we go vertical, we generally always have either a signed lease, signed LOI, or we have, as a case of one project I can think of a series of companies who have told us they need growth at this point, and we've decided to go forward and working through the mechanics of documenting that. But we wouldn't just put up steel on the hope that they will come, not because of the current market, but we just haven't done that as a matter of policy in the company for literally more than a decade.

Okay. That's helpful. And then if you think about your investment activity in the quarter, the projects you bought or even some of the more covered land plays, is it safe to assume there's also tenant interest in those projects, or the stuff you've been buying really is kind of a future land bank without the tenant in mind?

Generally, we like to -- I can think of a number of situations in San Diego or other markets where absolutely specifically or the Bay Area, the Peninsula, where we have specific tenant interest. Remember, Peter, Steve and Dean have all mentioned, we've got now more than 1,000 innovative tenants. So the amount of information and the amount of requirements really come to us in a way that there's nobody else that could marshal that kind of a resource. And that gives us the confidence to make some moves where we know that we will be successful. There have been a recent -- we're not going to confirm or deny anything, but a recent San Francisco Peninsula report on something on a project we're doing there, and that we have signed an LOI. I mean that's a good example. And again, I won't confirm or deny, but that's an example of if that was true, where it makes sense to do what we did. And that's kind of how we operate.

Okay. And then I was going to ask a follow-up to my original question on this call, which was, you started talking about the haves and have nots. Is there a way to handicap the -- like the percentage of the portfolio NOI that even is what you would consider more at risk type tenants?

When you say more at risk, what do you mean?

Well, you had talked about tenants that either -- maybe they're running -- they may run out of capital to fund their pipeline. Just not as well capitalized and so may end up needing some sort of recapitalization or running out of capital.

No, we diligence tenants before we sign leases or even letters of intent, and we monitor them oftentimes usually quarterly, but sometimes monthly. And if you look at -- on Page 17 of the supplement, we give you a breakdown of our tenants. Half of our tenants are investment grade or large cap. We've got about 7% of the portfolio, which is private. We feel very good about the majority of -- the vast majority of those companies because they generally well-funded, and they've got a pathway for additional funding. We've got -- in our public biotech, the vast majority of those, again, are well funded with cash runways that go out, oftentimes beyond leases. And if not, certainly multiple years or are waiting for readouts oftentimes for Phase III. So we feel pretty good about where we are. And if there's anybody that runs into a problem, we kind of know about it. I mean, a good example might be Nektar, which had a is in our Mission Bay portfolio. We have watched them for quite a while. We're very close to them. They're going to, I think, sublease their office space, which is with Kilroy. They've got space with us. That project is partnered, but we already have demand for backfilling that space should they decide to give it up, but they said they're going to keep a big chunk of their lab space, so I wouldn't expect them to give the majority of that up. So we've already -- I mean that might be an example of something you're referring to. We're already well ahead of the curve there and could backfill that space probably at much higher rates.

Okay. And then on that lease, so 2030, I believe?

Yes, I don't have it in front of me, but it's a long-term lease. And the truth of the matter is, in some cases, and I would never say that with specifics to Nektar. But sometimes, you might hope a company would decide to give up a lease because you could backfill it at a much higher rate. So some of that you'll see happen, I'm sure in -- I mean mission-based still, the vacancy rate there is literally 0 at this point for built-out lab space. And so the demand is significant. There's a high credit quality in that submarket that has a huge pent-up demand for space. I'll tell you that.

Our last question comes from Anthony Paolone of JPMorgan.

So I just want to make sure I understand what the -- again, this have, have not discussion. And then looking at your mark -- your mark-to-market of the overall portfolio. I think it was pretty flat from what you mentioned last quarter, I think 31% and now about 30%. So are market rents still going up? Or have market rents kind of just holding steady at this point? And what is the outlook for the rest of the year?

Yes. So, Steve, you could comment on that.

Yes. Tony, it's Steve here. Yes, I don't know that drilling down on one specific quarter really tells a trend there. You are right. It's generally flat, but it's flat from an exceptional perspective. I mean, maintaining a 30% mark-to-market, I think, is extremely healthy. Look, again, as I said before, we are still in very low single-digit vacancies in these core markets, particularly for Alexandria's portfolio as you see with our occupancy. We continue to see healthy demand. So our expectation is we will continue to see pricing power in the market.

Okay. Great. And then just last 1 for me. You closed on your Texas investment in the foray there. Can you tell us where you went? A –Joel Marcus : Yes. So let me comment maybe on your first question first and then your second question. So I think if you – if somebody owns assets, I think the assets, and we’ve seen this in other cycles that are going to be the most at risk will be buildings in non-cluster environments, one-off buildings in suburbs and so forth that are not really high-quality buildings or in the best of locations. And so I think those are the ones that may end up – they’re getting probably the poorest quality tenants and the ones that may have a struggle there. And luckily, we don’t have much of that at all in our entire portfolio. With respect to Texas, we’re still under a series of transactions. So I’m unable legally to comment on that, but I do hope that, at the next call, I said that last call, but we’re still in pending transaction. But hopefully, we’ll be able to give you color on the next call, Tony.

This concludes our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Joel Marcus for any closing remarks.

Simply to say thank you, everybody, be safe and God bless.

The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation, and you may now disconnect.