Welcome to the Ramco-Gershenson Properties Trust second quarter 2009 Earnings Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. (Operator Instructions) It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Dawn Hendershot, Director of Investor Relations for Ramco-Gershenson. Thank you, Ms. Hendershot. You may begin.

Good morning and thank you for joining us for Ramco-Gershenson Properties Trust second quarter 2009 conference call. I’m hopeful that everyone received our press release and supplemental financial package, which are available on our website at www.rgpt.com. At this time, management would like me to inform you that certain statements made during this conference call, which are not historical, may be deemed forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Although, Ramco-Gershenson believes the expectations reflected in any forward-looking statement are based on reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance that its expectations will be attained. Factors and risks that could cause actual results to differ from expectations are detailed in the press release and from time-to-time in the company’s filings with the SEC. Additionally, we want to let everyone know that the information and statements made during the call are made as of the date of this call. Listeners to any replay should understand that the passage of time by itself will diminish the quality of the statements made. Also the contents of the call are the property of the company and any replay or transmission of the call maybe done only with the consent of Ramco-Gershenson Properties Trust. I would now like to introduce Dennis Gershenson, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and Richard Smith, Chief Financial Officer, both of whom who will be presenting prepared remarks this morning. Also with us are Thomas Litzler, Executive Vice President of Development, Michael Sullivan, Senior Vice President of Asset Management and Catherine Clark, Senior Vice President of the Acquisition. At this time I would like to turn the call over to Dennis, for his opening remarks.

Thank you, Dawn. Good morning. Today we like to share with you the highlights from our second quarter and the first six months of 2009. My comments will address our leasing achievements, our corporate body performance and update on our balance sheet and liquidity, the strategic review process and guidance for the year. We are very pleased with our performance for this quarter, in light of both the current economic difficulties facing our industry and the distress the American home owner, worker and consumer are experiencing. Together these issues have had a profound effect on the retail community, including both the public and private shopping centre owners. In the second quarter, Ramco-Gershenson faced a number of challenges, including confronting and resolving a proxy contest. We expanded our Board of Trustees by two members adding Mathew Ostrower and David Nettina, who have attended several Board meetings to-date and are already making a positive and constructive contribution. The cost of the proxy contest coupled with the third party expenses, associated with our strategic alternative study resulted in an extraordinary charge of $0.04 per share. Excluding these extraordinary items, our FFO for the second quarter would have been $0.56 per diluted share exceeding first call estimates. One of the most significant challenges to be met by our management team in 2009 is replacing vacancies in our tenant roster created by the bankruptcies of Linens ‘n Things and Circuit City as well as a number of other mid-box locations. Our leasing progress since the start of 2009 has been substantial. We have executed leases with or opened seven anchor stores accounting for approximately 200,000 square feet and we have signed leases with more small-format retailer year-to-date, than in the same period in 2008 and 2007. Balancing the increase in leasing velocity is the reality…

Thank you Dennis, and good morning everyone. For the quarter, our diluted FFO per share was $0.52. Without the cost related to our recent proxy contest and our strategic review, we would have exceeded the first quarter estimates by $0.01, and our diluted FFO per share would have been $0.56. This compares to the $0.52 reported in 2008. Some significant changes quarter-to-quarter included reductions in property level income and expenses, due mostly from the effects of contributing assets to off balance sheet joint ventures in 2008; from taking income off-line for plan redevelopment;, and lost revenues due to the closings of Circuit City and Linens ‘n Things. Other decreases in asset in FFO included the decrease in our fee income, resulting from reductions in development and acquisition fees, and an increase in our G&A expense, resulting from the cost of our proxy contest, and our ongoing strategic review. Excluding those costs, our G&A would have decreased by approximately $250,000 from the same period last year. These reductions in FFO were offset by increases in lease termination and interest income, and a decrease in interest expense, due to reduced borrowings at lower average interest rate, offset by a reduction in capitalized interest on development projects. For the six months ended June 30, our diluted FFO per share decreased 12.2%, or $0.15. We went from $1.23 in 2008 to $1.08 in 2009. Again without the extraordinary charges associated with our proxy contest and strategic review, we would have been at $1.12 per share. For the six months, significant changes included reductions in property level income and expenses due mostly from contributing assets to off-balance sheet joint ventures, redevelopment activity, and the closing of Linens ‘n Things and Circuit City. The changes is also included a decrease in our fee income resulting from…

I think it is important before we take your questions that you understand our two near-term business objectives. First, we will continue to maximize the value of our assets and second we will increase the strength of our balance sheet, improving our liquidity and financial flexibility. Although it has always been a primary focus of Ramco-Gershenson, we will continue to analyze all aspects of our portfolio in order to maximize the value of all of our assets. This process includes assuring that our centers are the dominant players in their trade areas; that they are well tenanted with a diverse mix of retailers who reflect current trends; and that the credit quality and net operating income growth assures us of the very valuable portfolio of assets. Second, we will build the balance sheet that reflects a conservative debt ratio and provides sufficient liquidity to overcome the challenges, the entire economy is facing, in order to be positioned to seize opportunities as they arise. Finally, while having a strong portfolio of assets and a good balance sheet are prerequisites for future growth, the next chapter of the shopping center industry will be profoundly affected by the consequences of this recession. Thus the management teams that will produce superior results in the future are those that can demonstrate flexibility and creativity. Ramco’s team of professionals with their long history of tackling the challenges associated with our numerous successful re-developments will be ideally positioned to overcome the countless complexities that will impend the forthcoming shopping center opportunities and in turn our efforts will create value for our shareholders. We would now be pleased to take your questions.

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from the line of Nathan Isbee - Stifel Nicolaus.

Dennis, just to clarify, you said that you did not expect guidance to change due to any changes in your core real estate fundamentals. Your updated same-store guidance is negative two to negative three. Previously you had mentioned or communicated in meetings that the guidance assumed like, a flat to slightly up. So I’m just trying to understand how your guidance could stay the same, given that change in the same-store NOI guidance.

Again, a lot of it has to do with the Circuit City and then Linens ‘n Things departure, and then I think when we looked at that before, and think that was not totally included in that and all the impact that was not included in there. That’s the basic difference, and I would expect that, its done so as these tenants come back on line they turn positive, and again the hope is, sometime next year that that happens.

Well, I understand your question Nathan. What I mean to say by my comments is that a number of our peers have been talking about deteriorating fundamentals relative to rentals across the board, occupancy, receivables, etc. So, to clarify what I really mean is that going forward, we do not see a deterioration, in any of those for the balance of the year. When we really take into full account the Linens and Circuit City they had a bigger impact and the complexities of the new deals that we are making with the replacement tenants and then working with the communities are taking somewhat longer than we expected.

Okay. That’s helpful. So, I guess it’s part of my call up. I mean your peers has had attributed a guidance revision due to specific mom-and-pop retailer weakness. You are not seeing that. I understand that you do have less [impacts] than that of your period that you are not seeing that in what you have?

As a matter of fact what we are seeing is that and we have not provided this statistic here that we have just relative to the new leases we are signing, we are probably signing more mom-and-pop leases. We are a national tenant leasers and I would resort to my prepared remarks, what we are really seeing is that we are making deals with retailers who have been in business for a long time, but they are coming from shopping centers that have suffered some issues, is either with the overall tenancy in the center or their anchors and they are moving to our centers. That being the large part is due to our canvassing program, etcetera.

Okay. And, then how about the mom-and-pop that you have, I mean not the new ones I mean, are you seeing any uptick in bad debt?

I would ask Mike Sullivan to address that. Michael, do you want to make a comment on bad debt and receivables?

Actually, yes. And, Mike Sullivan here. We are not seeing an increase in other tenant age receivables, most of that debt allowance is due to delinquency or collection actions with local mom-and-pop and its effects. Note that in those cases we are flat from Q1 into Q2 in both of segments.

Your next question comes from the line of David Schick - Stifel Nicolaus.

Hey, we’re double teaming with you today. Dennis, the market proceeds as -- as the investment market proceeds with two of the toughest economic environments in the US Detroit and Florida. I know you spend the last three years sort of addressing that but are you seeing any differences now and specifically, I think everybody is focused on Florida today because of some of the peer action. Can you talk about the relative strength or weakness in those two markets as it relates to sort of the rest of the country?

Well, let me say this David, I continue to bang the drum more often than that. I kind of get the feeling that people are not necessarily listening but the mid boxes we signed, the Linens’ and Circuit City have both been in the Michigan. When we rebuilt the spaces, they’ve been in Michigan in Florida. I had some comments and I am just talking of the cuff here but in the third quarter we will announce at least two more signings of Circuit City and Linens’ boxes because the leases are out now, one is in Michigan and one is in Ohio. So those retailers who operate in our space and I am including Florida, know that there is good business to be done in those states, as long as they are located in the right centers. Our occupancy has either stayed stable or is increasing in Michigan in Florida and our rental statistics specifically with Michigan and Florida have been reasonably strong, compared to our overall averages.

Okay what is your current forward development commitment capital that you are going to need for further success?

If I look at that, we are just some 10,000 feet. I am now looking at that development needs, which is in our supplement. We are looking at a roughly development -redevelopment roughly about $30 million through the end of next year and a property level CapEx that between now and next year again about $28 million. So, I am looking at 58 in total, I am looking for resources.

Wait a minute Rich. I don’t want to give the wrong impression. Of the $50 million almost exclusively all of the vast majority of that money has to do with redevelopment, it has to do with redevelopment where we have commitment. In the supplement that we provided, are the numbers relative to the redevelopment and as far as development and any development numbers that we have in there. I will reiterate my comment, which is we are in the midst of acquisition relative to capital expenditures for development that nothing will spent without a signed lease, without a joint venture partner and without a construction loan. So, over the next two years through the end of 2010 our expenditures for development are extremely modest.

Okay. Can you give us an update on dividend policy and what you are thinking right now going forward?

Well as we have said in the past, this is totally within the province of our Board. We have cut our dividend to approximately the income that we are required to distribute in the last Board meeting. There was no discussion specifically as to the direction of the dividend, but I think at least at this moment you can rely on the fact that the dividend policy will stay as we stated at the beginning of the year.

Great. Well, congratulations on your hard work in getting your financings moving forward, and on pretty good quarter results.

(Operator Instructions) Your next question comes from the line of Richard Moore - RBC Capital Markets.

When you think about your strategic alternatives process, how much should we factor in, I guess, for the rest of the year, maybe just for the third quarter in terms of additional G&A related to that program?

Yeah, Rich, I think for the quarter, we probably had about $840,000 in there, and we’d expect maybe on the low end through the end of the year to have a total of about $1.4 million or somewhere in that range. That assumes that a lot of things continue on. Again, biggest thing obviously are the underwriter’s fees and legal that we are paying. Everything else is kind of diminished.

So that $1.4 million Rich, is for the full year or for the rest of the year?

Full year.

Full year, okay.

Then the $1.4 million to $1.7 million I think is what we have in our plan right now in our forecast through the end of the year in that range.

Okay, Dennis, why does this strategic alternatives process go on so long? I mean, it would seem to me to be more of a - something you do and you get an answer, and then you execute and then the alternatives process is sort of done?

Well, I think it’s important Rich. I think people, when they hear a buzz word like strategic alternatives, are focused only on, are you selling or are you not selling. I would assume everybody, at least in the REIT world is looking at their strategic alternative because we are going to be coming out of a very difficult economic time and the rules of the game going forward will not be the same as the rules for the last 24 months. Because of that our strategic review involves more than saying, well, would you sell the company or would you continue to operate. What we are looking at, when we talk about moving forward would be, what will this company look like, what would our capital requirements be, how do we want to structure the balance sheet, etcetera. So, there are whole host of variables that we have been working on, but I think you can gather from my comments that there will be clarity in the third quarter.

Okay. So should we put some of the same kind of G&A expense in next year as well, I mean, it just kind of continues to another million or so?

No. Absolutely, no.

No, no. Okay. All right. So, then yeah I want to get for the third quarter thing. Do I understand from your comments that the line of credit, the term loan, asset sales, and possibly JVs will all be, we can all pretty much count on those having been concluded to some extent, I realize they are always ongoing but to some extent by the third quarter call, is that right?

All other things being equal, I would agree with the first two or three I mentioned. I am not sure. If, you are referencing joint ventures for development deal that may take a bit longer although at Aquia relative to the residential, we have made significant progress but that residential construction with our partner would not commence until 2010.

Okay and you think you have the whole $250 million term loan and line of credit combination in that capacity or you think will be the capacity going forward to 2012?

Again, we’ll give you more details on that, I am hopeful within a very short period of time as Rich has referenced we are approximately 75% home with commitments from the vast majority of our banks. We just have, what I like to think is a small hurdle to get over to get the rest committed. There will be some amortization in that, that we have agreed to and is in our business plan.

Then I was little surprised that actually development fees went up from the first quarter. They definitely went down from the year ago quarter but they went up in the first quarter, I mean, I would have thought development was slowing and I am trying to figure out exactly what was put in for fee income as we look at the rest of the year.

Yes, I think most of that Rich is our Hartland project and most of that is probably the SAD work that is going on there that we are getting fees on that.

Okay, did that continue for a while Rich?

Yes, Tom will help with that. .

Rich this ]is Tom, we have got another three to four months of SAD work to do up there. Its road widening and other work for Meijer’s.

Keep in mind I know you had a question relative to payables. Yes, I think that some of that is impacting us, and I have got a receivable payable, we are doing the work and getting reimbursed from the SAD. So its neutral to us from the cash perspective but again we are earning fees on the service we are providing there.

Okay, well, that was a question I had Rich, so that $5 million increase in payables is related to Hartland?

About two probably less than the half of Hartland and the rest of it is a billed up in the real estate tax accrual that we have this time of the year. The Michigan real estates taxes are due next quarter. So, you are billed and its probably because it’s a peak now from that perspective, we would pay those next quarter and go down by year end, pretty traditional.

Okay. Yes I got you. Then on concessions, you guys talked about concessions and is that something that has already happened and by that I mean we are already seeing the impact of that in the NOI or should we see the impact of that going forward do you think, I mean a new impact not just a continued impact?

Rich, Michael here. It is really already happening we do not expect any new impacts or really for the reminder of the year any adverse impact from what we are trying to do.

Okay good thanks. Then I have been thinking that at some point acquisitions are going to look interesting and I realize that acquisitions aren’t necessarily foremost in your mind at this point but with Catherine there I was curious maybe what you guys are thinking or what you are seeing in the market place out there in terms of either distressed assets or just assets in general. Do you think that might be interesting sometime down the road?

Yes, we are working with banks and looking at some distressed assets and we have seen some opportunities but none that have really hit the mark yet.

Was that most significant from a pricing standpoint that its not exciting or just not high quality assets that are interesting?

Well, some are in levels of distress for a reason and yes, pricing still is the most [elusive].

Let me just add to that Rich. I think that everybody is talking about all of these incredible opportunities that are going to be forthcoming. Financing is obviously a significant issue as far as those acquisitions are concerned, and unlike the experiences that we have had in the past because of a number of bankruptcies and major tenants pulling back, you can’t count on the speed of major tenants responding to you to fill either vacancies, or for you to feel reasonably comfortable that you are going to be able to execute a plan that will make that asset more valuable. So, pursuant to my closing remarks relative to Ramco’s background, I think that all of these growth opportunities that are going to come down the line because of inability to repay debt is going to be more difficult than some people are contemplating to get done.

Okay, great. Thank you, Dennis. Last thing here, I forgot one thing on G&A. The second quarter G&A seems to be high naturally each year. Do we -- is that right Rich? I mean, it seemed to be high last year, and then it was high this year, of course you had the extra $0.04. But then by the third quarter, do we see the usual seasonal drop in G&A unrelated of course to the strategic alternatives?

Rich, you might look at our plans that our G&A is maybe on the high end of the guidance or within the guidance we gave last quarter, which is roughly the $14.5 million to $15 million. Again, that does not include the strategic alternatives.

Your next question comes from the line of Nathan Isbee - Stifel Nicolaus.

Yeah, just a quick follow-up. In your discussion, the few lenders on the line in the term loan, what are the new terms as regards the new rates that you think you are going to be paying on this line?

Again, I think it’s going to be pretty much market and again, I hate to say anything that’s overdone and change the deal, but what I am seeing in the market is somewhere between 350 and 400, I would expect to be within that range 350 to 400 over…

With the floor?

Yeah. There will be a floor, as well and we have done it before unsecured. But, again I think the floor, I have seen it anywhere from below, 150 to 200 as what I am seeing in the floor right now. And, I think again, we would be within that range.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. We have no further questions at this time. I’d like to turn the floor back to management.

We thank you all again for your attention and your interest. If you have any follow-up questions, we would be even more than happy to deal them, and we will talk to you in about 90 days.