Good morning, and welcome to the Vornado Realty Trust Fourth Quarter 2017 Earnings Call. My name is Nicole and I'll be your operator for today's call. [Operator Instructions] I'll now turn the call over to Ms. Cathy Creswell, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you. Welcome to Vornado Realty Trust's fourth quarter earnings call. Yesterday afternoon, we issued our fourth quarter earnings release and filed our Annual Report on Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These documents as well as our supplemental financial information package are available on our website, www.vno.com under the Investor Relations section. In these documents and during today's call, we will discuss certain non-GAAP financial measures. Reconciliations of these measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measures are included in our earnings release, Form 10-K and financial supplement. Please be aware that statements made during this call may be deemed forward-looking statements and actual results may differ materially from these statements due to a variety of risks, uncertainties and other factors. Please refer to our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, including our Form 10-K for more information regarding these risks and uncertainties. The call may include time sensitive information that maybe accurate only as of today's date. The company does not undertake a duty to update any forward-looking statements. On the call today from our management for our opening comments are Steven Roth, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer; David Greenbaum, President of the New York Division; and Joseph Macnow, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Administrative Officer. Also in the room are Michael Franco, Executive Vice President and Chief Investment Officer; Mark Hudspeth, Executive Vice President and Head of Capital Markets; and Matt Iocco, Executive Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer. I will now turn the call over to Steven Roth.

Thank you, Cathy. Good morning, everyone. Well, volatility seems to be back in a big way taking stocks down meaningfully, especially at our space. I've been saying for the past couple of years that the easy money has been made for this cycle, asset prices are high, it's a better time to sell, than it is to buy, and most importantly, now is the time in the cycle and this books stock when the smart guys build cash. We did build cash, and we did sell assets, and we did give birth to two new important and focused company's through spin-off. We pushed away from acquisitions at [top-tech] prices. We have identified another billion dollars of assets to be sold, and cash will further increase meaningfully from 220 Central Park South closings beginning in 2019. We are in great shape for whatever is the come, whether it'd be defense or opportunity. Our office business is performing well, while retail continues to be soft and accordingly we expect 2018 to be a flattish year. Here are a few operational highlights for the fourth quarter. David will of course do a complete review in a moment. We are full. New York office occupancy was 97.1% up 10 basis points from the third quarter. We're also full at the theMART and we are working on a lease at the Q, which will bring us the full at 555 California Street at San Francisco. New York average starting rents were at near record $76 per square foot for the fourth quarter, and they were a record $79 per square foot for the year. New York office mark-to-market was 7.3% GAAP, and 6.9% cash on 319,000 square feet of leasing for the quarter. Cycles are a way of life and right now the market seems…

Steve, thank you, and good morning to all. I will begin as I usually do with my thoughts on the New York real estate market over the past 12 months. 2017 was a breakthrough year for the financial services sector. Employment grew by 13,000 jobs, a largest annual increase in over a decade. As a result, financial services employment ended the year at 11 last seen back in 2000. Importantly, much of this growth took place prior to the passage and the recent tax bill and with deregulation still work in progress, and we believe we are in the early innings of significant growth in the financial services sector employment. If you look at the recent announcements, Bank of America reached the entirety of 1100 Avenue of the Americas and MasterCard took all of 150 Fifth Avenue. And there are now reports of JPMorgan Chase's potential expansion by 400,000 square feet at 390 Madison Avenue after committing earlier last year to 430,000 square feet at Five Manhattan West. Much of the growth in financial services employment is attributable not to traditional banking and insurance roles but rather the so-called fintech. This convergence of tech and non-tech is why I do not put much stock in reported decrease of 9,000 TAMI jobs in 2017. I noted last quarter that the state controller estimates that nearly 50% of technology jobs in New York City are found in traditional sectors from retail to healthcare and from insurance to banking. We believe that tech remains strong and reported decline in TAMI employment is offset in a significant way by tech jobs in traditional sectors. Overall for the year, office using employment grew by 20,000 jobs in 2017 and is now up by 173,000 jobs in the last five years. With this continuing strong employment…

Thank you, David. Good morning, everyone. Fourth quarter total FFO was $0.80 per share compared to $4.20 in the prior year's fourth quarter. Please see our earnings release Form 10-K or our financial supplement for details of the items that affect comparability. Fourth quarter FFO was adjusted for comparability with $0.98 per share compared to a $1.2 in the prior year's fourth quarter, a decline of $0.04 or $5.7 million primarily due to the following. First, as previously disclosed in December of 2016, we received $192 million a repayment of our created mezzanine loans on 85 Tenth Avenue, and also received a 49.9% equity interest in the property for $1. Fourth quarter FFO from our 49.9% equity interest was $6.4 million less than the FFO in 2016s fourth quarter from the mezzanine loan. Second, a $5.8 million increase in interest expense inclusive of our share partially owned entities comprised of $3.1 million from $356 million of higher average debt balances, $2.1 million from higher floating-rates, $2.5 million of additional rent expense of 1535 Broadway which is treated as interest on the capital lease accounting, partially offset by $900,000 of interest savings from a lower average rate on our fixed rate debt. Third, due to a change in New York state's tax TRS filing methodology which was permitted combined tax returns from the TRS, that resulted in refunds of taxes previously expense and in 2016 therefore reduced 2016 tax expense by $5.5 million which of course do not reoccur into 2017. Partially offsetting this was $10.9 million of higher same store net operating income as a result of strong performance which I will discuss next and $1.1 million increase in non-same store income primarily from a straight-line write-off in 2016 fourth quarter. New York's fourth quarter same-store NOI increased by $8.2…

Thank you, David, thank you Joe. We’re happy to take your questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Vikram Malhotra from Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.

Want to just check on Penn One, any other of any other details you can provide on potential spend, incremental return just timing?

We are finalizing our drawings in connection with the work that we're doing to Penn One. That work as I said is in the final stages. The budget should be available in the next three to six months at which point in time we'll disclose those budgets fully as we do it with all of our major capital projects.

And then just one clarification on the retail comment. Steve I think you mentioned the NOI will not drop below I think 309. So just wanted to get your sense of, is that sort of comment on 2018 and 2019 meaning 309 this year could be the low point?

The answer is yes.

Okay, thanks.

Vikram I want to go back to One Penn for a minute. One Penn is a 2.6 million maybe 2.7 million square foot building in the very heart of Penn Plaza. It sits right adjacent to and has direct access into Penn Station. It's a formidable action which has spectacular views. The plan that we have to upgrade, modernize it and redevelop it is pretty spectacular. It has $73 in place rents we believe that there is huge opportunity for rent growth in that asset and we couldn’t be more enthusiastic about it. We think when we combine the - as David call as the duo, One Penn is Two Penn - did I say $63 in place rents?

You said $73.

David is correcting me and slapping me a little bit, the in-place rent in One Penn are $63 a foot which leaves enormous room for uptick there. So we couldn't be more enthusiastic about it and similarly when we accomplish the connection of One Penn and Two Penn into a four odd million square foot complex, where we can afford to do extraordinarily significant amenity packages and food operations we’re very enthusiastic about this.

And just to clarify when - so you’ll give us details potentially over the next three to six months and - it just sort of high level should we think about this as sort of one year project to two project, a just big picture how should we think about this?

Yes, it’s a couple of year project and our teams are in the process of completing the design group drawings and taking the bids and as soon as we have the cost estimates that we're comfortable with, we will of course make that information available.

And our next question comes from Jamie Feldman from Bank of America/Merrill Lynch. Your line is open.

I guess sticking with Penn Plaza you know, if you think about Two Penn what needs to be in place for you to come up with some plans there and you know whether it’s a thinking about leases and leases are expiring there or what happens with Gateway or any kind Penn Station redevelopment. How long should we be thinking until you can get some clarity there?

Two Penn actually sits right a top of the train station so the first point Jamie is that the Gateway project which is a huge enormously important project, but a very long-term project has no bearing whatsoever in our plans for Two Penn or the Penn Plaza district so that step one. Step two is, is that there's lot of stuff going on with Two Penn and our planning and different alternatives which is premature to talk about now, but whichever way they come out we think that they’re incredibly exciting.

And then I guess back to Joe's comments on the outlook for retail in 2018, I think you said you assume no additional leasing in the portfolio. So I mean just a handicap like if you were to get some leasing done like what's the drag there from no additional leasing as opposed to - you know probably a more reasonable outcome which is some renewals?

Which I mean not only is the non-leasing but there is a credit loss built in and multimillion of dollars that typically we haven't incurred. So what we’re telling you is 309, 310 is low end it could go up 5 million, 10 million.

And our next question comes from Michael Lewis with SunTrust. Your line is open.

Joe at the end of your comments you gave some detail on Central Park South, maybe I’m slow I just want to make sure I'm clear on this. It looks like the budget for that project went up about $150 million. I don't know if it's safe to assume you still think the sellout is going to be about $3.2 billion. Could you help bridge that how they’re still with those numbers they’re still 900 million after the - and taxes and everything?

The budget the producer project went up but so did the revenues go up - the budget and revenues go up and so did a reduction in the tax rate of the TRS go down. So net-net we think that the profit estimates that were originally made continue to hold. By the way we are pretty far along the job - you know the job is probably 70%, 80% built, the job is well sold and so we have very good visibility into the numbers?

My second question, I know you get asked every quarter about 666 Fifth, there was a change this quarter kind of how you categorize that. So I guess you know it sounds like you think the future of the office component is as office. I was wondering - if you think there's material equity value in your interest or is this a case where you know you think that the plans that were presented don't really create value and now maybe you just give this back?

First of all I mean there is no new news on 666 Fifth Avenue, I said a call or two ago in response to a question that it’s complicated situation with lots of moving parts and I said at the end of my remarks a call or two ago that this was the rare instance where we may be sellers and the market and the press picked that up as saying that we were sellers. That is true and in our financials that were just published, we basically just formalized that fact, okay so that's step one. Step two is, is that we have a relatively small investment in the property which we expect to get back.

Our next question comes from Michael Bilerman from Citi Financial. Your line is open.

It's a Michael Bilerman, I’m here with Emmy Korchman. Steve in your opening comments you talked about being in great shape for either defense or opportunity. So what are you looking at to know whether you should start spending some of this $2 billion cash forward and take advantage of opportunity or accelerate being a defense and selling more assets or stakes in assets because of what you see as the environment?

Michael, we see every deal that goes down which has any relation to what our sweet spot is and believe me if we saw a deal that cancelled, we would pull the trigger. So one of the things that I use in order to gauge how a cycle is going is the pencil. So assets - we just are not a buyer of assets at the offered prices today okay. So we would rather keep our powder dry. So there is - that's where we are I mean we look at everything and we are very, very, very disciplined in investing.

And Emmanuel has a follow-up as well.

We expect them to be more opportunities in the future as there always is.

Maybe a question for Joe or David. You spoke about the retail move-outs if you will or stresses in NOI. Is there anything in office bucket that we should expect to come up versus that would offset the contractual and why do we spoke about on previous calls?

We have well call Jamie you know the normal turnover, I'm sorry Michael, we have the normal turnover in the office portfolio. So we do expect we’re going to have a couple of move-outs. We also I mentioned Publicis in Chicago. Publicis also is a tenant at One Penn which is going to be moving out towards the latter part of this year, but it’s the normal ins and outs.

And our next question comes from Steve Sakwa from Evercore ISI. Your line is open.

Steve in your comments you talked about $1 billion of assets to be sold and I know that at least one or two quarters ago you identified another bucket of $1 billion of assets including some of the stakes you have in public companies. I'm just curious, is this the same billion you referenced in the past or is this a different billion of assets?

I think it’s the same Michael and I think it was last quarter that we referenced this - I’d love to get that second billion but it’s not there. So this is in a way of clean up - hang on, okay. So this is in a way of clean up and so that is - as I said this will take a couple of years to liquidate those assets. So in addition, as I said in my remarks at 220 Central Park South as closings begin in 2019, we expect that also to augment our cash balances for the year definitely.

And I guess as a follow-up maybe to Michael's question about you know kind how to deploy capital with the stock down in the kind of mid 60s here and your NAV at 96. I mean how do you just sort of think about share repurchases as a way to play offense and take advantage of opportunities we don't like I guess deals in the marketplace. How do you sort of way on stock price or?

Steve that's a very good question. We look at buybacks all the time, we look at it at the management level. We look at it at every board meeting. So a buyback now would be accretive to NAV by a relatively smallish number but it would, it would - basically require reducing our balance sheet by a fairly significant number. So for example, if we did a buyback of $500 million or a $1 billion that cash is gone and you get an accretion to the NAV of you know a number which is say a $1 a share give or take a little bit. So currently our board basically believes that we'd rather keep that keep that $1 billion of dry powder than increase it a very marginal amount though. Increase our NAV by a marginal amount. So that's step one although we know how to do buybacks we have done buyback they’re not off the table they’re on – in fact they are on the table at every meeting. The second thing is that we discussed this with our bankers and other experts, there is no real evidence that a smallish buyback and for us a smallish buyback would be like for example a $1 billion actually increases stock price. So the answer to that is that right now we are not in the buyback business although we may in the future.

And our next question comes from Vincent Chao with Deutsche Bank. Your line is open.

Maybe just sticking with capital deployment here, could you just remind us sort of where your current thinking is on the return expectations for the developments in the progress pipeline and specifically maybe some push on the new ones that were out this quarter.

I'm sorry Vincent, could you say that again, returns on the development pipeline and what was the tail-end…

Just in particular the news that we’re added to the pipeline this quarter?

You broke up again could you?

So Joe why don’t you publish a way across burn expectations?

We have not.

So as a policy we do not publish - return expectation in the beginning of a project because the numbers are subject to moving around too much. We do have a very strong confidence in the cost side of the development, but lesser in the income side. And our history has been that we almost always exceed our expectations on the income side. So the answer is that that when we get visibility into the numbers we published it and we don't like the publish speculative numbers.

And maybe a different question here just in terms of the NAV you alluded to the 50 basis point increase in the cap rate for the retail portfolio as well as some challenges facing the market today. I guess as you think about that I think the new cap rate assumption, do you think there is more risk to that going higher or lower at this point?

That's speculation. I mean I think we are in the truth telling business and we thought that it was absolutely appropriate to raise the cap rate for retail to reflect what we believe is the market. And we think that that's a right number today that number could go down it could go up or it could stay the same that’s too speculative for me.

And our next question comes from John Guinee from Stifel. Your line is open.

First Joe you had mentioned I think flat year-over-year FFO it was I correct in understanding that. And then could you talk about what your basis is are you looking at your FFO as a $0.98 fourth quarter run rate times four or what are you looking at as your 2017 number?

John we did give our annual FFO we did give - all adjusted for comparability we did give fourth quarter a $0.98 a share. We said flattish but we’re not going to say more than that flattish.

So flattish off of 3.73 for…

Yes.

So we should look at essentially 2018 FFO in the 3.73 range?

Flattish.

Second David Greenbaum, I don’t know why I haven’t notice this before I'm looking at Page 32 full year and your GAAP rents are $74 and your cash rents are $76 on your second generation relet space which is highly unusual to have cash be higher than GAAP. That implies a rent roll down over the course of the year. Is that an accurate way to think about it?

John, we're scrambling - our team is scrambling to find that page and give you an answer what I prefer to do is let them contemplate the answer and get back to you offline.

Our next question comes from Nick Yulico from UBS. Your line is open.

Just going back to the street retail portfolio could you give us a feel for where in-place rents are today versus market specifically I guess going back to your cap rate assumption of 4.25% is that reflective of portfolio where rents are at market?

The answer your first question there are some pluses and some minuses there are some I mean it’s a large portfolio by far the largest in the city. There are many leases that are below market, there are some leases that are above market I don't - I’m not so sure with what the net would be number one. Number two is, is that the cap rate is a number by the way NAVs are in precise numbers. The NAV or the cap rate or the new cap rate for the quarter is applied to the - income to the current income stream. It doesn’t apply above market rents, it doesn’t apply below market rent.

I guess I was just wondering if that cap rate is reflective of you know where values would be for portfolio where rents are at market?

Yes, I think so.

Just second question is on G&A, last call there was some talk about your re-concentrating efforts on reducing G&A and that you said you might provide analysis on this I didn’t see anything new on that topic. Could just gives us some detail on how you thinking about where you could reduce G&A this year and what would you assume maybe for 2018 G&A?

Nick let’s just talk about G&A for a moment it’s a complicated analysis because each company has different accounting processes. So in our company the expense is in the G&A line but there is $20 million a year $5 million a quarter of income that comes in from the transitional services agreement and other fees for the two spins et cetera. So the published number of our G&A really when you look at it you should reduce that by $20 million so that step one. Step two is we look at our sister company all the time and one of them has a $15 million of G&A that they push into the operating line and another one of them has lots of capitalized G&A or what have you. So when you take that altogether, the G&A of all the companies that are in very similar businesses are pretty much right on top of each other. Notwithstanding that we are going to make a major push in zero based budgeting on our G&A. And hopefully we will get some returns out of that.

Our next question comes from Alexander Goldfarb from Sandler O'Neill. Your line is open.

Two questions. So for the first one is the billion of dispositions that you outline if we assume sort of like you know 5% to 7% earnings yield on those assets it’s t like if 50% 70% million. How do you think about replacing that on a FFO basis in a way that it’s tangible for folks to see the earnings growth of the company versus the NAV stuff that you've done which is left tangible from a public stock perspective?

The number is close to five and maybe even a little bit below five the number one. Number two is we are focusing our efforts on the assets that really have low yield or no yield. And then the second is that the trick is to reinvest the capital and by the way the billion dollars that we project is after taxes and so we retain that. So the idea is to reinvest that capital into assets which are core and which have higher return expectations.

And then just a second is - the perennial question is on your succession the CFO search is almost coming up on a year and obviously there is talk for who would replace you. Are there certain things that you're at this point looking to achieve before we hear something new on the CFO or is your view to figure out what you want to do as CEO before coming out with the CFO?

I mean I think those are all cogent thoughts which have - each of which has validity. So first of all I’m clearly on the back nine I’m clearly not going to go forever and I may even be on the back half of the back nine. So with respect to me, our Board focuses on that every meeting we have a succession plan in place if I were to be hit by a truck or whatever. And so you know that's enough about me there still is a fair amount to be done and there is no news other than what I just said about me. With respect to the CFO search that’s actually pretty interesting we have had a very good reception in the marketplace that people really think that this is a great job and a great opportunity. So we’ve seen a lot of very nice very capable people. Interestingly enough we have some very nice and capable people here and we've learned in this search that our old warrior Joe Macnow is probably the number one candidate accept he is a little bit over the hill too. So it's not a priority because we have a great staff in both in our premise operation and in Joe and there is other things involved that we don't have any news to report on that other than what I said.

Our next question comes from Jed Reagan from Green Street Advisors. Your line is open.

Joe I think I heard you say that you expect portfolio cash same-store NOI growth would also be flattish this year versus last year, is that accurate?

I'm sorry Jed the portfolio of cash did you say?

Yes, cash same-store NOI growth to be flattish 2018 versus 2017 was that right when I heard that?

Yes, when you taken that retail going down flattish.

And just a clarification to follow-up on a question earlier on 666 Fifth office condominium in terms of deciding not to hold the asset longer-term. Just curious if you can talk a little about why you made that decision and what kind of time horizon you're looking at for potentially exiting your position there?

The decision asset-by-asset is complicated we basically believe that the returns and the structure and the time is such that we would rather exit then stick it out, pretty much as simple as that.

Is that a 12 month type of horizon or two years or?

I can’t predict the timing I can't predict what we would like to have is the eventual outcome.

Got it that’s helpful. And then one more if I may so the stocks been obviously trading at pretty a significant NAV discount for some time now and the discount increased a little bit here recently. I guess can you talk about your strategy for closing that NAV gap I mean do you see this as just a moment in time with the market kind of bearish on New York City. Are you looking at change course at all the respond to those discounts?

That’s a $64 question isn’t it. So over the last number – but the first thing is that our observation is that we are not alone in the discount penalty box that all the companies in our industry segment and in other industry segments also have the same situation. And so there are a few industry segments that are selling at NAV or above. Our office is not one of them neither is retail. Okay, so that's the first observation Jed. The second observation is that if you look back in history and not that far back we have moved heaven and earth to close that discount and to recognize shareholder value. We have sold over $5 billion of assets. We have simplified, we have spun Urban Edge, we have spun JBG Smith, so a total of $15 billion of transactions in that. And so we think we have done a heroic job and more than anybody else has done and we acknowledge and admit with great unhappiness that it has not yet affected main course performance, okay. So having said all that we think we're resourceful, we have lots of ideas as I said some years ago everything continues to be on the table and it will be on the table. And closing that gap or getting our shares to reflect fair value is the number one priority in the day-to-day running of our business.

Our next question comes from Michael Bilerman from Citi Financial. Your line is open.

Just had a couple of quick follow-ups. Just in terms of the NAV and I recognize Steve you said you don't think it’s appropriate to have the pluses so that recognizing the minuses. I guess two things in relation to that. The first is, you guys are using full year 2017 NOI in the calculation and just thinking about where in places today its almost 3.5% higher using 4Q annualize which would probably be another almost $4 a share in NAV. So how I guess how do you think about using a historical trailing 12 versus spot. And then the second part is in removing the schedule of the pluses the signed leases, can you give some details in terms of what has been signed that is going to commence, so at least we have that in our mindset from previous disclosure.

NAV is a very, very in precise calculation, everybody does their own version of NAV you do, the analyst do, our investors do, and we do. So we have put out a NAV which we believe is very, very conservative and we think it's important that we do that. We are using a trailing number and actual number not a forward number. We're not making any projections as the income which is not commenced yet. We're not offsetting that. We are not taking any reductions in income they happens from move-out of vacancies and what have you. So we're happy with where we are, we spent a great deal of time thinking about it. With respect to some other things basically most NAVs that the market participants use don't have a management fee in for running the assets. So we thought that was a little quirky so we put it in. So we’re not unhappy with it. We think if we wanted to get the NAV up another 5 or 7 or 8,000 share we surely could, okay. But as of right now we think the conservative road is the road to go. By the way the stock doesn’t seem to care what the NAV is anyway.

No that’s a separate question, but okay, I didn't know whether it was how you thought about in place signed current versus a trailing number. You obviously had a lot of growth over the course of the year as of a lot of that leasing took place and so I just didn't know whether it was a discussion point?

Michael all that's true, but we found that it was intellectually barren put in the plusses without speculating what the minuses would be and we ended up just saying, okay, just leave them both. Michael let me just - so we’re basically taking the trailing actual hard number right out of our docs and using that as a road map, which we think is a okay way to go.

And then Joe just want to come back to this NOI, you talked a lot about flattish, I understand the retail this year was 3.24, the bottom end of 3.09 for 2018, in the fourth quarter you’re actually at 3.33 annualized but put that aside. I am more interested on the office side of the business, the schedule that you had in the prior stuff on Page 9 still had about $36 million of signed leases incremental NOI that was on the come. And so I don’t why the office business would be effectively flattish?

First of all we don't give guidance as you know, okay, we are starting to link some statistics around the Edge, but we don't give guidance. We expect the office business to perform well next year and to grow. We expect the retail business to decline slightly, okay so when you put those two together we think the operating part of our businesses will have decent numbers next year. When you go below the line, interest and other things we end up with the conclusion that give or take we're going to be flattish. Now flattish is a word that we have coined and we're going to - what's the word when you get - right, we had to copy write that word so that's where we are. We expect the office business to perform well, we expect New York to perform very well. The retail business will decline a little bit and that's where we are.

My two sense would be you give the bottom line answer, I think we would appreciate all the components in terms of NOI, acquisitions, disposition, timing, capital markets activities, debt, equity, development spend, development timing, G&A, you gave us interest expense and a topline number. And then a bottom line flattish number you know and it's just - you go all the way or not basically, I guess it’s more of comment then a question?

Thank you. You got a lot of work to do.

And our next question comes from Jamie Feldman from Bank of America/Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead.

Just a follow-up for David. You had talked about the leasing pipeline, I think you said 900,000 square feet and 400, I think you said got done in the first quarter. Can you just talk more about the composition of that 900,000 and is it more kind of 34th Street area, is it more Midtown just to give a sense and the types of tenants?

The mix of the tenant that we're continuing to see just as we had a wide dispersion throughout all of 2017 with the fire sector having come back. So we're seeing the TAMI tenants, the fire tenants we're even seeing the medical institutions in New York that are expanding into office space all being players for space over in terms of the pipeline. And in terms of you know where the activity is dispersed, the reality Jamie is it’s basically all over the portfolio what I said is about 400,000 square feet that either have been signed or in lease negotiation, the balance of the space that we talked about the 900,000 square feet is pipelines in which case we’re in the early stages of some lease discussion. And for example in the last two weeks we've actually received a couple of proposals for 512 West 22nd Street, the new build on the high line each of which we’re about 50,000 square feet. So we're seeing activity really everywhere in the portfolio Jamie and again broad spectrum in terms of tenant types.

And then just back to Joe on the interest expense comment, can you just repeat what you did say about what interest expense will look like in 2018. And then just the earnings volatility or sensitivity to higher rates in 2018 and 2019?

I think we've been pretty conservative in our estimate when I gave you that 15 million that took LIBOR over 2% at the end of next year and that's what built into our model.

We have no further questions at this time. I would like to turn it back over to the host for final remarks.

Thanks everybody very much. Our first quarter 2018 call is scheduled for 10 O'clock on Tuesday, May 1. We will see everybody there. Thank you. Have a good day.

Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes today's conference. Thank you for participating. You may now disconnect.