Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the fourth quarter and year-end 2009 Health Care REIT earnings conference call. My name is Christie and I will be your operator today. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. We will be facilitating a question-and-answer session towards the end of this conference. (Operator Instructions) As reminder, this conference is being recorded for replay purposes. Now, I would like to turn the call over to Mr. Jim Bowe, Vice President of Communications for Health Care REIT. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Christie. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today for Health Care REIT's fourth quarter 2009 conference call. In the event you did not receive a copy of the news release distributed late yesterday afternoon, you may access it via the company's website at www.hcreit.com. I'd like to remind everyone that we are holding a live webcast of today's call which may be accessed through the company's website as well. Certain statements made during this conference call may be deemed forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Although Health Care REIT believes results projected in any forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, the company can give no assurance that projected results will be obtained. Factors and risks that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements are detailed in the news release and from time to time in the company's filings with the SEC. I would now like to turn the call over to George Chapman, Chairman, CEO and President of Health Care REIT for his opening remarks. Please go ahead, George.

Thanks Jim. Before discussing our successful efforts to position the company for the future, let me review a few 2009 highlights leaving the more detailed commentary to Scott Estes. First, in light of a difficult economic times, we were quite pleased with the one and three-year total stock holder returns of 12% and 21% respectively and our inclusion in the S&P 500 index in January of last year in ranking as one of the top ten total return performers for the decade. Among our rates we're also very gratifying to management. Secondly, while the unsecured note markets remained effectively closed at least through to the first half in 2009, we were able to opportunistically raise nearly $1.3 billion of capital to $700 million of equity, $266 million of Freddie Mac secured debt at an average rate of 6% and so of non-core assets that generated over a $325 million of proceeds. Thirdly, we completed gross investments in $717 million of which nearly 90% related to our preferred investments in combination senior housing facilities and customer focused medical facilities. But today I want to focus my remarks on what we've accomplished during the last several years to position and competing for success. As we've reported, we've taken advantage of these difficult economics times to restructure the balance sheet by enhancing liquidity, lengthening maturities and deleveraging. With only a $140 million drawn against our $1.15 billion line of credit at the end of the last year and with that equity markets open, we are in a great position to take advantage of investment opportunities. We have also methodically positioned our portfolio and corporate infrastructure to meet the challenges ahead and to take advantage of opportunities even during the last several years of difficulties we chose to bolster our capabilities through to numerous…

Thank you, George. We are pleased to talk about our new strategic investment, the University Park at MIT and Cambridge, Massachusetts and our new partner Forest City Enterprises. Forest City developed University Park in cooperation with MIT over a 25 year period providing research and laboratory facilities for leading life science companies and healthcare institutions seeking a campus environment providing scientific and clinical collaboration and the successful commercialization of that research and that clinical work. The joint ventures client in Universtiy Park include investment grade or subsidiaries of investment grade publicly traded pharmaceutical companies including Novartis, Genzyme, Millennium, a subsidiary of Takeda and our noted University Park the worldwide headquarters for the Takeda's oncology research and business as well as (inaudible) and are very proud with the relationship with Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women's Hospital clinical research operations. University Park is located adjacent to MIT's campus and has started to lead ground links with MIT for more than 50 years. This $668 million joint venture includes all seven of cities [ph] wholly on life science buildings with two attached parking garages with more than 1,700 spaces. The joint venture was formed February 22 with approximately 1.2 million rentable square feet, 100% occupied and projected 2010 cash net operating income of $51 million. Please note $4.7 million of the projected NOI is contributed by the garages. The joint venture acquired 6 of the 7 buildings this past Monday, but these numbers are inclusive of the 7th building which we expect will be contributed in the second quarter. The average age of these buildings is 11 years and backing up the value of the garages the investment preferred is about $510 per rentable square foot well below today's replacement cost. The joint venture has no preferred or promoted returns to foresee…

Thanks, John, and good morning everybody. The company ended 2009 in a very strong position with a solid balance sheet, low leverage and liquidity that will provide important flexibility as we begin our next phase of growth. We’ve continued to diversify and enhance the quality of assets is our portfolio, with most asset classes performing fairly well through year end 2009. Regarding investment activity, we completed $717 million of growth investments during 2009, including $209 million in the fourth quarter. Fourth quarter acquisitions of $68 million included a skilled nursing property in LTAC and a master leased on campus medical office building at a blended initial yield of 8.3%. Turning to portfolio performance, I'll first review our development progress. For 2009, we originally anticipated $536 million of completions for the year, that ultimately delivered $734 million of new projects. We now have $660 million of projects under construction with only $212 million left to fund. Regarding lease up, approximately $185 million of our 2009 development completions were medical office buildings. Upon completion, these projects were 89% pre leased on average and moved directly to the stable portfolio. In addition I think we made good progress with our senior housing and hospital assets, stabilizing nearly $200 million during the year. In our stable portfolio all three of our senior housing asset classes generated occupancy improvements versus the prior quarter. Sequential quarterly occupancy increased 60 basis points in our independent living portfolio, 80 basis points in our assisted living portfolio and 40 basis points in our skilled nursing portfolio. Payment coverage also remained strong, with results generally flat versus the prior quarter, with independent living at 1.27 times and assisted living at 1.58 times and skilled nursing at 2.29 times. Fourth quarter performance thus far suggest continued improvement in occupancy and steady…

Thank you. (Operator Instructions). Your first question comes from the line of Andrew Ryu of Banc of America Merrill Lynch.

Just to go to same-store revenue growth of minus 2.4 I just wanted to confirm the independent living CCRC rent deferral these are these all part of what was announced last quarter or is there something new incremental and new this quarter as well.

No that’s correct that’s the same operator and same amount as last quarter. There’s no change in that number. It will take obviously another couple of quarters through that to flow through the same store results.

Okay and then for the skilled nursing that you guys also reported was impacted by the transition of one portfolio to new operator. How big the investment developer is for your skilled nursing portfolio and can you give us a little more color on that?

Sure in the skilled nursing portfolio the slight decline there are two items as I mentioned the portfolio transition with a pretty small portfolio is a little bit less than $20 million and it was transferred actually out of bankruptcy last July and we now have a new 15 year mastered lease at lower rent than pre-bankruptcy level. So we are happy with the new operator is in place as a part of that transition but I guess slightly lower rents. And I think another example is the restructuring transaction. We actually were able to extend a $106 million master lease term by five years through these negotiations and provides us with an opportunity to acquire additional properties and actually wanted the property skilled nursing we did acquire in the fourth quarter is only one year old and has a very high quality mix I think its 60% in that asset so there is some positives to add to that transfer and just a slightly lower yield than last year.

And then switching gears to your disposition guidance of $300 million is there a particular asset type you are looking to dispose and can you guys guide us to what the timing is, is it going to be more like the first half of 2010 or do you think it goes like the second half.

Sure again $300 million is the guidance. Its virtually at least 85% of the dispositions in our assumptions, their free standing skilled nursing assets and really the timing is roughly in the middle of the year. I think that’s probably the best assumption and generally the degree of variance in our guidance really is continued upon ultimately their ability to get financing several trying to go through the HUD process which can take a long time. So that will be the color on that.

Your next question comes from the line of (inaudible) with Morgan Stanley.

I was wondering if you can talk a bit more about your entries in life science and whether you see this latest acquisition as a one off or if you can see that space taking up a larger share of your portfolio in the long term.

This is John thanks for the question. No we see this as a strategic investment and initiative so I would not characterize it as a one off I think its about 5% of our total portfolio today and we look to grow that over time with Forest City and with our other medical center clients and new clients. So you know it will be a measured growth and strategic growth but now we continue, we do expect to grow it.

And would you look to develop as well.

We would in the right circumstances you know a lot of our development with our hospital systems are kind of 100% or largely pre-leased facilities and we would look to again to have conservative development metrics in place as we expand and develop.

And in terms of the JV itself there were 10 available life science buildings why were three of them excluded from this JV.

Really nine potentially available for the joint venture we acquired the joint venture acquired all of the wholly owned facilities that Forest City wholly owned. They have partners in two of the facilities and assets that we would like to acquire and may acquire some future date but today we start with the seven.

Your next question comes from the line of Rich Anderson of BMO Capital Markets.

On Forest City so basically right now you are basically a financial partner old you have plans to sort of grow your internal life science capabilities through hirings and what not over the next few years.

This is John Thomas. As a part of this acquisition one important thing to us was the experience and really the history and philosophy of Forest City and particularly their life sciences management team which is based in Cambridge and frankly couldn’t have found a better fit and expertise. So I’ve got experience we may grow experience internally and may add additional expertise inhouse but we partnered with excellent resources and team and they are dedicated team within the Forest City organization and as I mentioned based here in Cambridge so we expect to grow together with Forest City.

Alright but for the foreseeable future you are hanging your hat on their life science capabilities.

That’s right in my own experience and we expect mutual client opportunities we’ve got clients we expect to take them us to for development opportunities and acquisition opportunities.

Okay. How broadly was this opportunity marketed to other potential bidders?

We don’t know for sure but we do know Forest City was looking for a strategic partner as well and I think identified us as a through with their advisors identified us as a strategic partner. So if the joint ventures actively remains in a government structure where we are actively participating governance and continued management of the Cambridge facilities but again as I mentioned this is the future in working together with them.

And just another $51 million you mentioned that’s the total portfolio right?

That's the 7 buildings so one building will be added in…

But not your share I mean.

No that’s correct. That’s the total joint venture. I would like to I made one slight correction in my prepared comments that half the management team at Forest City will assume [ph] for managing the joint venture is based upon the assets of the joint venture not net operating income.

Okay. And future growth with them would take on a similar form of joint venture type structure or would there be some sort of nuances the future transaction?

I think it'd be fair to say it would be the consistent structure into the joint venture, but each building each opportunity may take different forms but we would expect again keep it as simple as possible and coordinate the growth together.

Okay, turning to more broader question aside of that for the guidance may be Scot to you the guidance range how much of it influence was the $1 and plus investment program on guidance in other words what would your guidance range or give me some color on in the absence of this heavy dose of acquisition activity for this year.

I think Rich as we built the model and drive out the guidance of the year you probably the biggest factor going into the process was the equity we raised last year really going into the year lower run rate I think really its your starting point and then we are happy to grow that run rate via the acquisitions we made early in the year. I think the other factor that its impacting numbers really is the timing of those disposition. You know $300 million at 11% obviously is roughly $33 million of impact that they have [ph] in the first phase 0 if it happens in the last day of the year. So, we said in our guidance and I think that's kind of a picture how we started to build an ultimately what we came out with.

But the vast a matter or all of the acquisition activity of $700 to $800 million I think you said would be immediately accretive in the first year.

Kind of our generalization obviously yes we are not assuming any incremental capital from the deals that we are talking about here, but yes that the yields they are adding immediately to earnings once they come on.

George when you went through your looks [ph] into 2015 what percentage of the portfolio do you think will be entrance fee and what percentage do you think will be pure hospital as opposed to the medical office component?

Rich I think said to the end of 2014, but entrance fees will probably be around 5% it will be my guess at this point given our growth and we’ve always thought that larger combination facilities, we probably favor rental and we just add some opportunities to do a lot of entrance phase during the last two or three years, so we’ve figure probably the combination would be much, much greater than entrance fees so we also I think entrance fees as I said before are going to be very valuable pieces of our portfolio. So I guess 4% or 5% by four or five years out. In terms of hospitals Rich we really couldn't say. I mean within that category of course we have (inaudible), we have IRS and a lot of other types of properties and part of that answer relates to how the medical facilities evolves increasingly MOBs are larger with more medical services within them. If that continues or if the bond markets come back to the hospitals and there is more stability in the revenue bonds but I'd say that the MOB growth would be the most significant than the hospitals but there are lot of variables. So John I don’t know if you want to comment on that further.

No I think that’s right and our things like global and the university medical center that were building out (inaudible) they are already projecting for the future growth I think a lot of the growth in the hospital investments will be with existing clients and going existing assets its hard to say how much that growth over time is. Our original project or investment that we developed last year with Hamas has substantial services included as (inaudible) mentioned so the hospital is really evolving to a large ambulatory care centers.

Rich the first one just picking up on your point John on the first (inaudible) last year you know we had a cancer center in an MOB connecting to the hospital and where one ends and the other begins is becoming increasingly interesting to watch its not unlike how senior housing has evolved where the different types account patients and different characteristics so again to answer the question we are certainly not shying away from doing a modern customer centric hospital, so especially those out in the suburbs and those that are branded by a great system that is forward-looking.

Right its getting blurry between the two.

This is something like you know.

Your next question comes from the line of Dustin Pizzo of UBS Securities.

Jim or George was there any opportunity to own a 100% of Life Science assets.

This is John Dustin I think the what Forest City was looking for was a strategic partner and a partner to grow with outside of Cambridge and so there was a discussion about it but again usually the joint venture decision was the best one for us.

Okay and then John can you also just dig a bit further into the various pieces behind the forecasted 4% to 5% NOI growth. I may have missed it but specifically what is these roll like over the next few years and where are the end placed rents relative to where you guys think the market rents are today?

Yeah the current market rents as it opposed to the existing facility and existing spaces in the $55 to $60 range, a lot of that is not built out. So as leases expire in the Forest City and the University Park range we expect those type of market rents to be available to the joint venture so, and again the competitive advantages leave building [ph] already built out and the lapse spaces is excellent, so tenants are looking for and trying to get into those buildings today so the near term expirations are they are not a lot of near term expirations but over the next 4 to 5 years there will be a measured amounts and market rent should be available.

I am sorry, so the market the current market rent is $55 to $60 and where are the end placements today?

I think the kind of the average across the portfolio is around $40.

And then just finally George following up on some of the bigger picture questions for Life Science I know John talked a bit about the strategy for the platform longer term and I understand the attractiveness of capitalizing on the strength of the Forest City near term, but if I were a shareholder in HCN why should I be happy today with the minority interest in the portfolio that kind of essentially be externally managed by another public company when I could at the end of the day just going back in one of the other short Life Science but its not to say any additional management based on the full portfolio of the asset [ph].

I think there are a lot of reasons to be very supportive of this investment. One is relates to the quality of the real estate and I really hope that a number of fund managers and analysts get a chance to visit these are the premier Life Sciences some of the premier Life Science assets in the country and it is therefore consistent with goal of having the best quality real estate assets in the sector. Two, we have a strategy of big partners where some of the best academic medical centers in the country and clearly Life Sciences is a critical part of that. We do think that Forest City as a joint venture partner is very attractive and its not just in the Life Sciences area either. Forest City adds a lot of development expertise in the commercial area, in the residential area. And so it’s not just expanding into health care and life sciences, it could well be that being able to have a Forest City join us in some of our ventures and in purchasing certain communities that we can really take advantage of what we have told the street is happening around the country, which is that multiple types of services are coming together in a village, in a community and we will have the ability to make some great investments together. We really had to evaluate one another, Forest City and Health Care REIT came to the conclusion that we think a lot alike about how we treat operators and tenants. We found that to be very positive. In terms of making sure that we could be involved in the critical decisions, we're going to be very active players with Forest City on the major decisions as well. John, you want to add any…

I think that again the attractiveness of these assets and these buildings and these tenants, as we mentioned, Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women's Hospital's clinical operations are on this campus and we have other academic medical centers. We believe we will be attractive to again the life science community, the quality that's in University Park, and all of them, almost all of them are large publicly traded investment grade organizations, and they are looking for access to the academic medical centers and the clinical material and physicians and vice versa. So, we think it's a very strategic growth initiative both for ambulatory care, medical office facilities and life sciences should be very attractive for our shareholders.

So when you really come down to it, even though you raised the issue, the so called minority interest, we are protected from a governance standpoint and the advantages going forward far outweigh that concern in our minds.

Your next question comes from the line of Rob Mains of Morgan Keegan.

John, I want to make sure I heard this right. The $51 million that's after the management fee?

The $51 million is, after property management fees which are paid to -- the tenant paid the property managements. The $51 million is net of those fees and net of the ground rent payable to MIT. It is not net of the asset management fee of 50 basis points, and again that is 50 basis points of the assets in the joint venture.

And then this is where I got the decimal point from. The Aurora deal 9.1% cash yield, haven’t heard a lot of folks talking about any kind of MOB deal for that sort of yield, is there anything different about this portfolio to get that type of yield?

Just persistence and growing the relationship with Aurora and with our partners Hammes in the joint venture. And you know, it’s a large portfolio, Rob, a great portion of it is in Milwaukee and attached on campus and attached to their hospitals. Some of it is in some smaller buildings and some older buildings in the rural markets, but I think ultimately Aurora and Hammes were looking for a good partner. They needed to grow some of these facilities and we will work with them to grow these facilities over time, but other wise it's just a mutually beneficial relationship.

Right, and it's on the press release that this is a joint venture, $192 million though is your slice?

That's all inclusive third of [ph] the joint venture.

But the $192 million is your $192 million, the 9.1% yield will accrue to you, right?

That's correct.

And just in general, when you're looking at MOB investment opportunities, I'm assuming you're not seeing a lot of 9s out there?

Now I think the markets has been pretty strong for one building at a time, two buildings at a time. Some of those are trading in the 8s and even premiums to that, but for portfolios of this size, there just haven’t been many opportunities and again hospital systems are looking for a relationship out of this investment of this size. Rob, so that's, we think these kind of opportunities, the one-off trades are priced in that 8 to 8.5 range and some are getting below eight today.

Rob, but I think you should emphasize John's point about being a flexible partner and understanding the acute care business is telling here. We know that a lot of these facilities may need additions, may need to be reconfigured, may need new capital, and as we've talked at length, the acute care space is changing, the MOB space is changing. So I think the ability to interface with us and we have a pretty good feeling for where the acute care space is going, makes us hopefully a very good partner for Aurora.

And then George in your initial comments, when you talked about reducing your exposure to single function buildings and particularly skilled nursing, there’s been a fair amount of speculation obviously about private equity sponsored skilled nursing that could be up for sale, some of it may be even Toledo and I just want to know kind of your appetite which preceded very high quality nursing home assets even if it is just sniff and nothing else combined with it.

Rob, we are very supportive of the higher end standalone skilled nursing assets. We probably prefer sniffs in combination, but I think it was just fourth quarter we bought a brand new skilled nursing facility down in Texas I believe, and so we are not adverse to it. Now whether we would go after a whole portfolio or large portfolio, I really couldn't say. When we talk about what our plans are, and where we are going to go by 2014 about the time we think that's what's going to happen (inaudible) 2011, and the whole world changes and we have a great opportunity. And if you are talking about a quality company and a quality set of assets such as Toledo, then it would be hard to turn down a good investment and some thing like that.

Your next question comes from the line of Omotayo Okusanya of Jefferies & Co. Omotayo Okusanya - Jefferies & Co: Couple of quick questions back to the JV, thanks for giving us detail about expected NOI growth and on the lease roll, but to just to get to your overall, I think John you mentioned 9% to 10% IRR calculation on the deal, could you talk a little bit about assumptions you're making about exit value on the deal and also in regards to the long-term financing on it?

Our assumption again is a long-term role, but looking at about ten-year IRR assumption is going on or coming out cap rate about the same as the going in cap rate, that’s how our model works, but again it's really the substantial growth in NOI over that ten-year period. Omotayo Okusanya - Jefferies & Co: What about on the funding side? Right now I think $170 million is just going to come from the line of credit, correct?

That is correct. And we generally do that as a part of our overall capital plan where we think we are adequately capitalized given the aggregate investment volumes we see, but you should always expect us to consider raising capital, should we see an incremental amount of investment business from the levels there included in our guidance, which we do think is an opportunity. Omotayo Okusanya - Jefferies & Co: So just to make sure I'm getting this right, so you’re kind of assuming the $170 million kind of space on the line of over that 10-year period to get the 9% to 10% IRR calculation?

We are speaking big picture, you are talking about the specific IRR calculation. It's an unlevered IRR calculation. Omotayo Okusanya - Jefferies & Co: Just another quick question, on the 2010 guidance, you talk about new development funding of $300 million to $400 million, but when I look in the supplement on page two, when you talk about your development funding, there is a $168 million targeted for 2010. I might assume there’s going to be more developments coming up in 2010?

That is implied. You can see on the page two, Omotayo, that's right. There is a $168 million of funding from existing projects and given the guidance it would imply another $130 million to $230 million of fundings from projects that hadn’t started at the beginning of the year. So we do expect and see some great development opportunities, but that would be a supplement to our acquisition growth which we think at this point will be more significant than additional development. Omotayo Okusanya - Jefferies & Co: And then on the development side, it’d seem like in fourth quarter, you kind of had more conversions than I think you were expecting as of third quarter and even on the 2010 side, it seems like more conversions been moved into first quarter than what you were projecting last quarter? Could you talk a little bit about what's changing from that perspective?

I think it is actually people focused on buildings. John, correct me if you feel differently, but are focused on the projects that are underway. There is not a lot of construction going on and you're seeing full attention in projects they are getting completed on time, on budget and often early.

Yeah Omotayo, that's correct. We've got no shortage of contractors and subs available to work on these projects and most of them, actually all of them are moving ahead of schedule and also oddly enough because of favorable weather in the construction sites where we are actively working, so things have moved along very well in our development pipeline. Omotayo Okusanya - Jefferies & Co: That's helpful. And then on the skilled nursing side within your portfolio, could you talk a little bit about kind of the states you're in and any concerns you may have about Medicaid reimbursement going forward, given some of the states have cut Medicaid rather significantly?

I'll try to take that one. I think our skilled nursing portfolio has been quite stable. If you look at our occupancy trend over the last really three years to five years it’s been flat. If you look over five years again, we've received a lot of benefits from the favorable reimbursement environment, five, four and three years ago such that our coverage increased from about two times up to the current 2.3 and we were watching obviously I think you are entering a period where you may see Medicare and/or Medicaid reimbursement not quite match the rate of expense growth, but given the buffer in terms of coverage we are not spending a lot of time if any at all worrying about the coverage of risk in our skilled nursing portfolio. So we are watching like everybody else in regards to health, reform and again that's probably already there. Omotayo Okusanya - Jefferies & Co: And then just the last question before I hop off, fourth quarter operating trends, I know you mentioned that you thought they were stabilizing or getting better across many property types, can you give us a little bit more detail about what you are seeing with regards to improvement occupancies or rental rate increases?

Sure. The comment was really in senior housing, so it would be on skilled nursing and generally somewhere in this 20 to 50 basis improvement range for all three, and recall [ph] 0 to 51 was between 0 and 30 was our preliminary guess, so it’s basically flat up maybe half a percent through the first couple of months of what we received so far in the fourth quarter. And coverage would be that flat. Omotayo Okusanya - Jefferies & Co: Are you seeing further improvement into January/February from the fourth quarter?

We don't have that info, sorry (inaudible) things we received from our operators today, but if anything, one or two I think talked about would be our division.

Your next question comes from the line of Todd Stender of Wells Fargo Securities.

For your disposition guidance, how much of that is related tenant purchase options? I think it going to be one-off sales to third parties are the tenants…

There are skilled nursing operators, Todd, and I think a couple of them are purchase options. The key really is getting the financing on the other end is people would like to evaluate repurchasing the buildings that's generally been in our portfolio for a while and hence the free standing field nursing are generally fine with them refinancing (inaudible) if they are able to get it. So a couple of these I would say in general in size, there are two that are approximately $80 million to $100 million, that are skilled nursing portfolios that are contingent in timing and going through the high process in one case I know in particular. So, and then the rest of the other $100 million would generally be smaller pieces of assets.

Are you willing to provide seller financing on these to just facilitate the sales?

Not on these portfolios.

Okay. And just with your guidance, do you have any debt repurchase activity included in the guidance?

No.

(Operator Instructions). Your next question comes from the line of Jerry Doctrow of Stifel Nicolaus.

Hi. This is actually Dan Bernstein filling in for Jerry. I guess I had a question maybe everybody spoken about the JV, so I want to switch topics to the dividend policy and you may have addressed this earlier. I actually jumped on the call late. The dividend was kept flat with the current quarter and I guess we're trying to reconcile our thoughts with you're very positive about the acquisitions and stabilizations of some of the portfolios and development, but you didn't raise the dividend. So we want try to get some thoughts on your management board thoughts on why the dividend was kept flat and what that says about how you feel about the company?

I think that we are a little conservative in that regard. We knew we're going to have a pretty good year in terms of volume of investments, but also look at coverage, FFO and Fab and thought for now at least, we'd see how the year played out. I suppose even within this year that we can revaluate that record. I think that was a consensus view of the board and management it might just reflect our basic financial conservatism and we are certainly very optimistic about our ability to do excellent acquisitions and to a lesser degree really quality development. You shouldn’t read any concerns into it, it's just perhaps our approach doing business.

And historically, you've been in the low 80% I guess FFO payout ratio. Is that where you'd like to be going forward? It seems like you're higher than that now, and does that play part in the decision?

We had historically been in the low 80s as we see the market place evolve. We're going to have to evaluate exactly where we want to be. It's been a great change in the leverage percentages with a wide array of feelings about low leverage versus running at 45% or even as high as 50%. So, we'd like to check out all the, and look at it and come to a conclusion over the next quarter or two as to where we want to go and therefore, re-evaluate whether or not we should increase our dividend.

That seems pretty reasonable to me. And the other question I had was on the development. And again you may have spoken about this earlier, you didn't list any development that was expected to come online in the out year spoke [ph] out 2012 to 2014. Are you strategically thinking about pulling back on development some versus acquisitions? It seems like that in some of your comments, but I might have missed the beginning where you talked about the overall strategy for development?

I believe that development is a critical part of our program going forward. We've talked about the changes in the acute care space, even at medical office buildings are changing dramatically, larger, more customer centric, more medical services, more one stop shop. We've talked about senior housing projects getting larger and better and more common space. So, it's going to be have to a critical part of anybody's portfolio if they are going to continue to have the most modern portfolio, but I think to some degree, the economics times allowed our development to become a higher percentage perhaps than we would have liked during the last year or two because we are a quarter, a third, a halfway through development, and you don't stop good developments. So, I think we've always had the approach and we maintain that development should be a key part of our future. We're going to continue doing that where we begun a new cancer center down in Florida. We're doing another high end medical office building out in California and we have others on the drawing boards, but I think that as Scott pointed out we have some great acquisitions and to the extent that we can focus on acquisitions, but not be concerned about proceeding with a great state-of-the-art development, so that's our approach to business.

And will now turn the conference back over to Mr. Chapman for any closing remarks.

Thanks very much. I'd just like to express our appreciation to everybody who participated today and Scott and Mike and team will be available for any follow-up questions. Thank you.