Good day, and welcome to the Starwood Property Trust's Third Quarter 2013 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, today's conference is being recorded. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Mr. Andrew Sossen, Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Starwood Property Trust's earnings call. This morning, we released our financial results for the quarter ended September 30, 2013, and filed our Form 10-Q with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition, we posted our -- in addition, we posted our supplement to our website. This document is available in the Investor Relations section of our website at www.starwoodpropertytrust.com. Before the call begins, I'd like to remind everyone that certain statements made in the course of this call are not based on historical information and may constitute forward-looking statements. These statements are based on management's current expectations and beliefs and are subject to a number of trends and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements. I refer you to the company's filings made with the SEC for a more detailed discussion of the risks and factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in any forward-looking statements made today. The company undertakes no duty to update any forward-looking statements that may be made during the course of this call. Additionally, certain non-GAAP financial measures will be discussed on this conference call. Our presentation of this information is not intended to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for the financial information presented in accordance with GAAP. Reconciliations of these non-GAAP financial measures to the most comparable measures prepared in accordance with GAAP can be accessed through our filings with the SEC at www.sec.gov. Joining me on the call today are Barry Sternlicht, the company's Chief Executive Officer; Stew Ward, the company's Chief Financial Officer; Boyd Fellows, the company's President; and Cory Olson, the President of LNR. With that, I'm now going to turn the call over to Stew.

Thank you, Andrew, and good morning. This is Stew Ward, the Chief Financial Officer of Starwood Property Trust. This morning, I will be reviewing Starwood Property Trust's results for the third quarter of 2013 and the fourth quarter to date, including discussions of each of our 3 basic business segments, our traditional lending business, LNR as a stand-alone unit and the single-family residential property business, all of which we began providing segment level financial results for last quarter. Following my comments, Barry will discuss current market conditions, the state of our business and the opportunities we see looking forward for our newly expanded platform. For the third quarter of 2013, we reported core earnings of $104.4 million or $0.61 per fully diluted share. Both of these figures are substantially above our results for the prior quarter, where we've reported core earnings of $86.1 million or $0.52 per fully diluted share before one-time transaction and restructuring costs associated with the LNR acquisition. The primary drivers behind this earnings growth is the deployment over -- above our $1.4 billion in new loan investments during the past 2 quarters, as well as very strong results for LNR. I should note that our third quarter results also benefited from the first full quarter of operations for LNR, which closed on April 19, 2013. GAAP net income for the third quarter totaled $89.7 million or $0.52 per fully diluted share. These figures also compare very favorably with GAAP net income for the second quarter, which exclusive of transaction costs associated with the LNR acquisition stood at $79.4 million or $0.48 per fully diluted share. As of June 30, 2013, GAAP book value per diluted share was $21.78, an increase of 2.7% over the level of $21.21 we reported as of June 30. Fair value per…

Good morning, everyone. It's Barry, here with Boyd and Andrew Sossen. That last comment that Stew made, it's not before the acquisition of LNR is before the expenses associated, the onetime expenses associated with acquisition restructuring costs of roughly $0.14 a share. So actually myself was quite astonished when I saw the staff that we deployed $5.1 billion of capital this year, including rolling over $1.1 billion of equity that was returned in form of loans, maturities or loan repayments. So we've had a pretty busy year, and I think it's been a great effort by a ton of people this quarter. I'm particularly pleased, as Stew mentioned, with the work of LNR integrating into the San Francisco offices, STWD and SCG guys across the world who've really stepped up their originations for the platform, particularly in Europe. I'll talk more about that in a second. But from your perspective, and also mine as a big shareholder, I think the LTV remains rock solid below 65%, and we haven't had to climb much higher in the LTVs, those markets remain competitive. I think we used our great financial strength and ability to source large loans and then chop them up later, work with our partners that are now many across-the-board whether it's a life company or commercial bank. We've been able to maintain our disciplined underwriting standards, and we're very tough when we just killed -- had a brouhaha here over a $200 million loan that the equity guys and the debt guys fought for the finish line. And ultimately, we have that much of a disagreement we don't do it, so probably a great deal and probably see it in one of our competitor's books but we couldn't get consensus. And it wasn't about the LTV actually. It was…

24.

24. And so we'll start trading, we think in February. And we're going to do a 5-for-1 reverse stock split. We anticipate that being around a $1 billion book. That is a $5 -- 5-for-1 reverse stock split, it's about $5 a share, $1 billion book, 200 million shares. When we spin that book off, if you follow the math, let's say, at 26, it's $5, it's book value, I'll talk about that in a second. That means the stock is $21. If you take our current dividend, which we're going to keep at $1.84 on the $21 stock, it's like an 8 9 [ph] dividend yield which will be the highest dividend, I think, Starwood's ever traded at if it trades at that level. So with a better book, more diversification to the book, multiple sources of business, multiple lines of business, we're a real company now, we're not just a pile of mortgages. We're certainly not a pile of CMBSs. And we think it's a great opportunity for us, and we really think the single-family business will begin to trade very well. We believe we have about a 16% gain in that book, $1 billion, it's $160 million, it's almost $1 a share. And our fair market, the value for the quarter we're not including anything for the increase in value of the single-family home and NPL book. I'll also point out a really interesting quirk, which is as we take the NPLs and turn them and get gains in sales of loans, that does not count under GAAP as earnings. So those are many millions of dollars of gains from turning the NPLs. It's not in our GAAP earnings and that's odd but it is GAAP so [indiscernible] GAAP. The other thing I'd pointed about our single-family…

Barry, like always, you've covered virtually everything but I'll just say a couple of quick things about our business. The pipeline's as robust as it's ever been, which is really, really amazing, considering there are so many other market players who now have discovered mezzanine as a really attractive investment. It's obvious that our scale is probably our single largest competitive advantage, and it allows us to win transactions consistently when we really like them. Recently, we have been successful in a number of development deals in New York City with world-class sponsors at very low LTVs, which is really, really impressive in terms of what it's been able to do for our investment portfolio. Another quick thing worth mentioning is that our -- what we refer to as our smaller loan programs or average loan in our pipeline these days is north of $100 million. But through the acquisition of LNR, we began to pursue smaller loans down to $20 million. And that business is finally getting traction. We've got a handful of deals that are now in the pipeline or signed up. There's an executive down there, Matt Jewell [ph], who's running that program for us and that's really coming on. That's another example of the synergies with LNR working. And the last quick point I'd make is that, as Barry alluded to, or not alluded, spoke specifically about earlier, the percentage of our pipeline made up of transactions generated out of Europe by Jeff Dishner and Peter Denton's groups is now the most material it's ever been as a percentage of our pipeline, I hope. And those transactions consistently have very, very attractive risk-adjusted returns.

Right now, that portfolio's around 10% of our books but we'd expect it to grow significantly perhaps, given the pace of and the scale of those markets. The one other thing I'd say, if you don't look at our supplement, you should. We said when we went public we stated the art and disclosure, and frankly, I'm astonished at how much we give you. But it's really good and you can really see the breadth of our operations and where we operate a number of people in the various offices. It's quite something and it's a non-deal roadshow all in itself. So I encourage you to look at that disclosure statement. A lot of people work hard to put it together for you. And we believe in no surprises, so my team to me and me to you, we'll do the best we can in market conditions. But in general, I've to say one other thing. With Owen's ascension to the throne, we'll be lower longer and that's good for our business too and good for real estate and good for values. So with that, let's take some questions.

[Operator Instructions] And we first go to Ken Bruce with Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

You pointed out that's it's very interesting to see the improvement or I should say maybe the slower reduction in the special servicer business. Is there any way that you can frame what that opportunity is just broadly? I realize it's a little bit of a hard-to-find, hard to define market, but there was a lot of concern about what the melting ice cube might look like. Obviously, that's melting slower, but just kind of understanding what the potential is for new deals and things of that nature would be very helpful.

I think -- Cory.

Yes.

Let me take the front of this and Cory Olson [indiscernible] office in the Miami. Here's the shape of things in the servicer, right? The servicer was the bimodal camel. It had the 5-year maturity of the '07 deck, the '06 and '07 maturities, which were '12 and '13. And then add that 10-year paper that was originated in the same years. Those mature in '16 and '17 and see a little bit in '18. And we have a significant market share of those loans that are maturing both as main servicer. And then as what we expect to get [indiscernible] from may fall apart in '16 and '17. The truth is nobody can really know the magnitude of the fees we will get in '17. What made LNR kind of unique among the 3 major servicers was that we could see near term pretty well. We couldn't see '16 and '17 so well. And if you think rates are higher, they're going to make a lot of money because more is going to default than we probably think. As rates are lower, then probably defaults where we think about today. But it's been -- for example, if you'll have to refinance the 5-year or 10-year treasury at 5 instead of 2 6, does it give any mortgage stress and more fees and more happiness here. And mixing that group something of, I hope rest of those are happy. So we can't -- I would say we're doing a pretty good job of managing the trust and being aggressive to defend our strips or servicing strips. And one of the 3 largest servicers, if you look at Page 15 in the deck, you'll see that the 3 largest servicers, this is Morningstar's rating, are CW, LNR, and C3. And between…

Can Twitter buy us? Can you guys arrange that on the phone? We need some cash flow and earnings. How accretive would we be to them?

They're down the street. I'm sure they can make that happen.

Ken, it's Cory Olson. Also on the special servicer, a couple of data points for you. We've been named special servicer on a dozen new deals this year, so we're actively both participating from an investment perspective. We're joint venturing with other players and participants in the market, so those are deals that we'll be adding to the book in years to come. And then if you look at the legacy portfolio, we've picked up net 6 assignments this year. So you're always going to have periods of time when you're due to migration perhaps losing a trust here or there and picking up some. On a year-to-date basis, we're up 6 trusts. So we're both managing the legacy book very actively, and we're, of course, participating on a new-ish market.

Right. And that's what's so encouraging, I guess, as we look at this business. And Barry, as you were discussing some of the issues around valuation, I think this continue to be one of those areas where if the investment community can get a better sense as to what the earnings power for this business is over a long term, I think you'll get better realization of that in the multiples on the stock or expressed maybe different way as a lower yield on the stock. I think also just because there is so many different businesses here, just having some sense as to how they -- how each of them might produce some growth for you would be important. My last question is I guess as you think about capital formation, which you've been very successful with in the last couple of years, and you mentioned in your remarks that you're looking to be a little bit more efficient in terms of the way that you use the balance sheet to maybe allow for sale -- asset sales or syndications or something of that nature to allow you to invest without raising capital. Can you help to give us some sense as to what the capacity is if you went that direction and help us frame kind of -- I think you pointed out you've got something close to $500 million in capacity but how that might be extended if you think about making your balance sheet is -- optimizing your balance sheet as much as possible?

We have plenty of term capacity, term loan capacity and obviously, if we can convert this thing successfully close to a long-term capital, then that could help our equity base. And it's not day 1. And our book value continues to decline. I mean, it's $22 now without the game, the revenue which would make it like $22, almost $23. And I think you can see, you can do the math on our earnings and you know our payout requirements under REIT regulations, ultimately we have [indiscernible] and which is absorbing some -- which is paying taxes on some of the earnings of LNR, so -- and we have been working on some -- do we want to say anything on [indiscernible] or no?

No, we've been, I mean we've been having dialogue with the IRS around ways to potentially classify what's currently being pulling through our pirouettes [ph] and getting taxed at effectively a corporate tax rate be able to move some of that income out of the TRS to the REIT level and avoid the tax leakage that we have at the TRS. So when we added some disclosure in our earnings release this quarter at the beginning of the discussion on the LNR segment, we try to frame for you what percentage of our assets in TRS versus outside of the TRS. And if we're able to effectively classify bad income as good income, and you could see some pickup in earnings going forward.

But this isn't totally de novo. They allow some of the residential mortgage REITs to take a contractual servicing strip and they've tried a little and that will make classify into good REIT assets. And we think there are indications they will do the same for us here. But it's the IRS -- who knows? After my comments about Obama on CNBC, I'm sure they're never going to talk to us again.

[Operator Instructions] And next we go to Jade Rahmani with KBW. Jade J. Rahmani - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc., Research Division: On the recent pace of real estate originations, can you discuss the average LTVs and target spreads on first mortgages and mezzanine loans that you're originating?

So I'll make a stab at it. If anyone wants to act, then you certainly can. Our LTVs, as you can see, are staying around 65% on a blended average. And we climb higher or lower depending on the risk. We think our loan on Hudson Yards Tower, which is a construction loan, is a fantastic loan and it's probably 50% LTV. As you may recall, I think we originated a $400 million loan. And the borrower or the developer put in $100 million into our loan because he liked the loan so much. So he has a silent position in the deal. And it was a great execution, it's a great -- and the building is leased to credit tenants and the banks couldn't figure out how to deal with Coach, which is a tenant of buying their space and for that to claim [indiscernible] to the banks and the banks couldn't figure out how to do that. But the perfect execution for the rest of STWD. I don't think our LTVs are climbing up, we do higher LTVs in multifamily, just closed a loan in San Francisco, it probably was 80% LTV, a multifamily if you don't go there, and you're just not going to have it in the portfolio. It has a different risk profile than a hotel, for example. So it's by asset class, it's by securities income stream by the roll over schedule, they are using our real estate execution. We're happy to climb -- in fact, I've working on this deal right now on multifamily [indiscernible] if I could reach the borrower and beg for the loan. And I'm told I'll only go higher on those assets and the higher LTV because I know the assets into the lease own them. So I'm totally…

I would just add it's actually quite rare that borrowers ask for anything north of 75 LTV. More often than not, they'd rather put in more equity. In fact, on the deal that Barry was just referring to, those large multifamily -- another multifamily we're competing and trying to win, the borrower just told us yesterday they want to borrow less. They want to drop the LTV. And that's a far more common to see the LTVs at 60 -- I would say, we're seeing way more deals at 65 LTV than above 80. It's rare.

And we can't win them, by the way. They will fall into a life company, they're not going to stretch out, really we're just not going to able to -- not stretch out, but they're going to push it down to the point where it brings the institution into AAA in securitization. It's really hard for us to get that paper. It's been that way for 40 years, though. Nothing's changed, it's the same way. If it's simple and easy, we're just not the guy.

And we've always said that rather than chase our yield by going up and taking a whole lot of risk, if it comes down to it, we're going to stay at the safer end of the spectrum.

But we only have one paper that has an equity figure in it, which is 701 Broadway. And so at the moment, that's the only transaction when we thought we climbed high enough that we justify taking a piece of the equity, which we did. And we value that, by the way, I believe it's 0 and I will tell you that [indiscernible] our equity position, it's not 0. So we have hidden value somewhere in our book. Jade J. Rahmani - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc., Research Division: And how about on the first mortgage or whole loan side where spreads just generally are?

I mean, spreads have been -- generally? I mean, that's a hard an answer to be specific about. We do loans between LIBOR plus 3.5 and LIBOR plus 8. It's relative to the situation. So we're able to be competitive in all of those spaces. There's no doubt that, as Barry said, rates are low, they don't look like they're going up anytime soon, and there's just a lot more capital chasing the mezz space, so there's some pressure on that. But again, we run this, as Stew said in his discussion, we run a giant cherry picking machine, where we try to see every transaction in the country and then find these particularly large complex transactions where we have less competition. It takes scale to win those.

That is still the niche. The bigger deals are -- they still stress the bank's capabilities to hold the paper. If they're going to securitize it, they'll step up, you have seen them step up [indiscernible] that CMBS exits. When it's a loan like something like a Hudson Yards, they're going to hold that paper and they're limited by size. And we see that in our equity book and we see there's 5 guys sharing a loan and they've got it syndicated to the whole book of the banks. And that's when we can be super competitive. Because we don't have to syndicate and our balance sheet at the moment allows us to take the whole loan on and then syndicate it later when we think we're getting superior execution.

With a plan B on one of these very large, very complicated transactions as a syndicate of banks, just the process of trying to negotiate and close a large complex transaction with 5 banks is a nightmare. It's enormously onerous on the borrowers. And so they much prefer -- we used the term all the time a one-stop shop, they can talk to us, it's one conversation, one negotiation for real estate developers that tend to be valuable.

One of the -- introducing the face something else about that because like we just refinanced our loan -- our regional loan on the Hyatt at New Orleans which we actually made the construction loans to turn on the piece next to the Astrodome which have shot after Hurricane Katrina. And we're really proud of that loan. I mean, we did a great thing for the community and it was a great deal for us. But because it's us and because we have relationship with a borrower, we were able to refinance the loan without competition. He liked us, he liked the way we stepped up the first time. We have, obviously have this loan for I think 3 years. So we have perfect underwriting, I visited the property recently and it's spectacular. They did a great job. We're very comfortable in upsizing a loan and refinancing it without anybody, no brokerage, just us. Those are great. And I think today it still resonates with some portion of the borrowers that they like having a guy they can go to. They can pick up the phone and call Boyd or Warren or any of us and Stew and Chris Tokarski or any of our originating guys and they can get an answer, anything they want outside the loan, they have a tenant they brought in that needs $18 a foot instead of $13 a foot, we look at it, we can change the loan. So we're really super flexible and we are like an old insurance company that way. We're not -- we're -- we eat what we kill. I guess is we're whole guys. We have to like what we originate. That's slightly different for the conduit business, by the way, but further our main business or any business, it's really good that way. Jade J. Rahmani - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc., Research Division: And on some of the recent European deals you've originated, how does the underwriting compare with the U.S.? Is it similar returns for lower risk or is it much higher expected returns?

I'd say it's pretty similar. Probably slightly higher returns. But we've focused our European lending -- focused on the U.K. We have a look at transaction, but I think we financed a Finnish retailer recently. We're buying some retail in Sweden. So we've been up in those markets and we've looked at some things in Spain, but we haven't closed [indiscernible] partner business that appeared last week. You land in the beer drinking countries only. So Germany is a great winery before and you don't want to land in the wine drinking countries of France and Italy. It's too -- it's very fine line.

A talk of [indiscernible] I'll also point out that...

What do you want to point out here?

That we hedge the currency. So we're a little bit disadvantaged. So local lenders, because we will shape...

50.

50 exactly. 50 bps off of the...

The way depends on them.

Depends on the currency and the duration and the rate differential, but it doesn't for local lender, we can lose. But we're finding American banks actually are taking bigger and bigger positions over there. So we're not even partnering on the Heron Tower. It was published, I can say it. We partnered on the senior that was taken by JPMorgan. So you didn't see these guys over there a lot, now you're beginning to see more of them. As the French and German banks have stepped away from international zones, they pulled back to their borders. So -- and they're stepping out a little bit, which recently closed a German bank in the UK. But for the most part you don't see them and obviously, many of those British banks are just are shrinking, not growing. Jade J. Rahmani - Keefe, Bruyette, & Woods, Inc., Research Division: Great. A quick clarification on the single-family residential spinoff. The $850 million of assets, including the cash that you're going to contribute and the $1 billion in equity value by the spinoff date, is that the additional purchases that are taking place, you said $40 million to $50 million a month? I assume you're not going to stop buying?

Yes, yes.

So Jade, we announced as of 9/30, we had approximately $715 million in the strategy and of course, spinning out early February at 3 months at $50 million a month and $100 million of cash. So that's probably back into $1 billion.

[Operator Instructions] And next we will go to Dan Altscher with FBR. Daniel K. Altscher - FBR Capital Markets & Co., Research Division: Question on the dividend. Barry, I think you said that you're going to keep the dividend at $0.46, which is good. But thinking forward, it looks like clearly, the core earnings power of the company is going to be better than that. So kind of 2-part question. One, is there room to maybe move the dividend up? But if not, if -- am I right to assume that, that is going to be retained earnings and that's organic book value growth that, well, sets that way?

You'd be right and you're right and if we don't pay it out it goes into book value. So -- But we will -- frankly, we need to -- we're still doing a consolidation of -- we're looking at the numbers from LNR next year and you can see, we're lot of businesses now. We're more complicated than we were and we run a lot of models to figure out like low ends and high ends of ranges and we're guessing origination pace. And so we try to do this is as some margin of safety. And -- but I think you would expect that if our business continue the pace it does, you will eliminate a $0.14 hit from the one-time LNR acquisition. You're -- what did you say, $2.18 in this year or something like that? $2.20.

We had a range of -- we've said $2.09 to mid-$2.20s.

$2.20s. So I don't think we're going to get away with $1.84 and $2.20. I think, we might be a very low end of our payout requirement as a REIT. So that would mean we would have to increase the dividend, obviously that's a board decision, not mine, and we have...

It requires a lot of tax analysis too.

Yes, complicated and in Andrew's case, the servicing switch would change our earnings also and could be materially accretive to the company. So that would also change our feeling about the stability of our stream, and we're really happy to be paying what I hope will be close to our 8.5%, 9% dividend yield, unless the stock rises on the stealth and that's ridiculous. So personally, I own stock and I'd be happy to buy more. I think we'll take the same disclosure tactics to the single-family resi business as we've done to this business. And we should be able to make -- my feeling is we disclose it to you, you make your educated decision, ask us questions. And if you don't like what we are doing, you don't sell the stock and if you do like it, you're going to buy more. I think we're done, right? Thank you all for being here this morning with us, and have a great -- what's coming up, Thanksgiving. Have a great Thanksgiving. Take care.

And that does conclude today's conference. We do thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.