Good afternoon, and welcome to the Aimco Fourth Quarter 2018 Earnings Conference Call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions] After today's presentation, there will be an opportunity to ask questions [Operator Instructions]. Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Lisa Cohn, Executive Vice President and General Counsel. Please go ahead, ma'am.

Thank you and good day. During this conference call, the forward-looking statements we make are based on management's judgment, including projections related to 2019 results. These statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, a description of which can be found in our SEC filings. Actual results may differ materially from what may be discussed today. We will also discuss certain non-GAAP financial measures, such as AFFO and FFO. These are defined and are reconciled to the most comparable GAAP measures in the supplemental information that is part of the full earnings release published on Aimco's website. Prepared remarks today come from Terry Considine, our Chairman and CEO; Keith Kimmel, Executive Vice President, in charge of Property Operations; Wes Powell, Executive Vice President, in charge of Redevelopment; and Paul Beldin, our Chief Financial Officer; John Bezzant, our Chief Investment Officer is also present and will be available during our question-and-answer session, which will follow my prepared remarks. I will now turn the call over to Terry Considine. Terry?

Thank you, Lisa, and good morning to all of you on this call. I thank you for your interest in Aimco. Last year was another good year for Aimco. We increased net asset value by almost 6% and economic income by more than 8%. We did this through property operations where key set Aimco records were occupancy and achieved peer-leading NOI margins. We did this through redevelopment were rest completed two major projects and continued investment in this highly creative line of business. And we did this through improvement of the Aimco portfolio, not only through operations and redevelopment but also by capital allocation. We exited the affordable business and made accretive acquisitions in Philadelphia and Northern Virginia, and we repurchased 6% of our shares at about a 20% discount to net asset value per share. In keeping with Aimco's paired-trade discipline the leverage neutral buyback is funded by the sale of lower-rated properties. Half of the sales have closed the remaining half are expected to close later this quarter. We also improved our balance sheet, safer because based on nonrecourse elongated leverage by reducing 2019 to 2021 maturities by more than one-half, by lowering exposure to possible interest rate increases, by reducing interest expense by $13 million a year, and by increasing financial flexibility and dry powder, by adding almost $1 billion to our pool of uncovered properties. Our total leverage remained roughly flat at just over $4 billion and we expect to reduce that by about 10% during the coming year. We have a stable and cohesive team. Our international culture was recognized once again when the Denver Post named Aimco a best workplace in Colorado for the sixth consecutive year. As the New Year begins, we expect another solid year for Aimco. We expect 2019 market conditions to be the same as or better than last year. Competitive new building remains a challenge in some markets, but the diversification of our portfolio provides important protection. When I reflect on last year's success and this year's bright prospects, I'm filled with gratitude to my Aimco teammates. Thank you for your hard work to serve our customers, for your friendship, and for the opportunities we have together. Now for a more detailed report in the fourth quarter, I'd like to turn the call over to Keith Kimmel, Head of Property Operations. Keith?

Thanks, Terry. I'm pleased to report that we had a solid fourth quarter-end operations. We've continue to maximize revenue growth to really focus on occupancy. The fourth quarter finished at 96.9%, 60 basis points better than the fourth quarter of 2017. Occupancy increased each month for 96.8% in October to 97.1% in December, and remained strong in January at 97%. Due to our consistently high customer satisfaction and our focus on customer selection, in 2018 turnover was 45.9% our lowest on record. We continue to have peer-leading margins in our same-store portfolio. Our fourth quarter NOI margin of 75.6% is nearly 200 basis points better than the last quarter and represents our highest performance on record and our full year result of 74.2% exceeded last year's by 140 basis points. This is due to our consistent approach to staffing efficiencies, process centralization, and automation. Turning to our same-store results. Revenues were up 3.4% for the quarter. Representing 32% of our same-store JV, our top revenue performers with increases over 4% were Boston, the Bay Area, San Diego and Seattle. We had solid performances of 3% growth in Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Miami and Denver markets which make up 45% of our same-store JV. Our lowest revenue growth came from Atlanta, Chicago, New York and Philadelphia which had growth of flat to 2.5% for the quarter and these markets represent 14% of our same-store JV. Also in the fourth quarter expenses were up 3% and net operating income was up 3.6%. And finally, for the full year 2018, revenue was up 3.1%, expenses increased 3.3% and net operating income was up 3.1%. Looking at leases which transacted in the quarter. New leases were up 20 basis points, renewals were up 4.3% and same-store blended lease rates were up 2%. We saw…

Thank you, Keith. Today I will cover redevelopment, development and our fourth quarter acquisition. First, to recap our 2018 redevelopment and development activity, during the year we invested a total of $176 million, announced the start of $122 million in new projects and completed construction at Park Towne Place in Philadelphia and Saybrook Pointe in San Jose. Two projects on track to create nearly $70 million of value for Aimco shareholders. As we look to 2019, we plan to increase redevelopment and development spending to between $225 million and $275 million a 40% increase over 2018. Approximately two-thirds of our planned 2019 investment will be on projects previously announced, and already underway, while the remainder will be the result of new starts during the year. We look forward to announcing and providing details on these additional projects as approvals are gained and construction begins. Finally, during the fourth quarter Aimco purchased Avery Row, a 67-unit apartment community in the Washington D.C. area. The property was constructed in 2013 and is located in Arlington Virginia, just one mile from the Key Bridge leading to Washington D.C.'s Georgetown neighborhood and two miles north of the Pentagon. We expect this $30 million acquisition to produce a free cash flow IRR of almost 9%, driven by the value-added by Keith's operating team. And while Aimco contracted to purchase Avery Row before the announcement of Amazon's HQ2, we hope this stroke of good luck provides additional benefit, given the property's location just three miles north of Crystal City. With that, I would like to now turn the call over to Paul Beldin, our Chief Financial Officer. Paul?

Thanks Wes. Today I'm going to cover our fourth quarter balance sheet and share repurchase activity, our 2018 financial results and our 2019 guidance. First, on the balance sheet. In addition to closing the $867 million of refinancing activity we discussed on the third quarter call, we increased liquidity and financial flexibility by exercising our option to expand by $200 million our revolving credit facility bringing total capacity to $800 million of which $633 million was available at year-end and increasing the value of our unencumbered properties by 50% since the beginning of the year to $2.7 billion. Now on the fourth quarter share repurchases and related activity. As Terry mentioned, we returned $394 million of capitals to shareholders by repurchasing 6% of outstanding shares at a discount of about 20% to our published third quarter net asset value of $56 per share, about half of the proceeds needed to fund the stock repurchases came from property sales closed last year and in January of this year. These sales were made out of premium to the values ascribed to these communities and are publishing in AV. The remaining proceeds needed to fund the stock repurchases are expected from sale of communities now under contract, again at prices greater than their value and our published net asset value. With the completion of these transactions we will have created a $106 million of shareholder value. The 2019 property sales are expected to generate taxable gains in excess of our regular quarterly dividend. Accordingly, our Board of Directors has declared a special dividend consisting of our regular quarterly revenue of $0.39 per share, plus $1.54 per share of additional consideration to be paid predominantly in stock. The $4.5 million of newly issued shares will be neutralized on the ex-dividend date, so that there…

We will now begin the question and answer session. [Operator Instructions] The first question will come from Nick Joseph of Citi. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Terry, you’ve improved the portfolio in cash flow straight into your transactions, redevelopment, development, and then exit of the asset management business. Now you’ve become more aggressive with share buybacks. If that continues to be a large disconnect between the private market and where the public market values the company, what’s your appetite for executing on an even larger transaction in selling the company?

Nick, as you know, the company's resale every day. And so -- and looking at any such transaction, we’ll think about it as fiduciaries and what's best for shareholders.

We saw another $11 million under the existing repurchase program, given that discount is still there today. Do you expect to continue to execute on it?

It's one of the tools available to us to create value for our shareholders. When we look at our opportunities, both in redevelopment or acquisitions or share buybacks, we compare them on a consistent basis of a risk-adjusted free cash flow internal rate of return. And we'll exercise those that seem most accretive.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from Trent Trujillo of Scotiabank. Please go ahead.

Thank for taking the time. Appreciate the commentary. On asset, so taking a look at the list of assets that you have in the market, these generally look to be a little bit older properties. And I guess the exception at least from what I noticed is Atlanta. So it kind of gives the appearance that you maybe not preferring to operate in that market? What's your investment thesis on Atlanta? Is there too much supply, not enough scale benefit for you? Any commentary would we appreciated there. Thanks.

Trent, thank you for the question. Atlanta is a very dynamic economy, but it's a very competitive real estate market and pruned to oversupply. And so we like our investments there and -- but we might -- for the ones we’re selling, redeploy that capital to areas that have better risk-adjusted growth.

Okay. And I guess on that point of risk-adjusted growth and diversification more broadly. Something you talked about a lot and looking at your market concentrations, you have about 40% or so of your portfolio in California. And realizing California itself is a large geography. Is there any inclination to reduce your exposure there whether it’d be by selling assets to take advantage of good pricing or any other means?

Trent, again thank you. It's an excellent question. California as an enormous economy, the fifth largest in the world just by itself. And so having 40% of our capital there as a percentage of the economy does not give me any concern at all. It does, however, have a single government. And so I think there's a certain political risk, which would make me cautious about increasing beyond that. And if we were to -- wish to reduce our exposure to the state or perhaps making another acquisition, and we should keep it constant, we would look at property sales or perhaps more likely joint ventures, which would preserve the advantage we have under proposition 13 on our property tax assessments in California.

All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate the time.

You bet.

Thanks.

Our next question comes from Shirley Wu of Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead.

So in Seattle you saw revenue growth of 4.4%, which is a lot higher than the lot of other peers in 4Q. Could you speak a little to the demand in that market? And what you're expecting going into 2019?

Shirley, this is Keith and I'll walk through that. I think most importantly is a recognized, we only have two buildings in Seattle, one of which is in Belltown, one of which is in Renton. And while they had a good year, the impact is pretty minimal to the overall scope of things. And as we look into 2019 we'll look to continue with that momentum.

Great. Could you speak little on panorama in Miami? How's that billing leasing out and how's that -- share and concession for yard club?

Shirley, it's Keith. I'll take that one as well. They just -- they have been leasing up for some time, but just recently started opening the doors thus far as moving people in. So it's -- what I tell you is that they were a little behind schedule; as we look at 2018 that benefit is us. And what I'd also say is our particular community across the street yard club is done quite well, even with them coming into the marketplace. And so while it's a significant lease-up, it's one in which we think that we’re well-positioned and on the right side of the water as well.

Great. Thanks for the color.

Our next question comes from Rob Stevenson of Janney. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, guys. Keith, which of your major market had the widest range of expected same-store revenue outcomes for 2019 when you were doing your budgeting? And what are the key variables that you think determine whether or not you're coming in at the high or low end of your expectations?

Rob listen as we put them in trenches for you, we don't go into the particular markets of exactly how each one was built up. But what I would tell you is, is that when you look at our top trench, which is Boston, D.C. and LA, those are the ones that we have the most positive outlook as far as how they're performing today and how we think they'll perform in 2019.

Okay. What other stabilize yields on the three ground-up developments you currently have under construction?

Rob, it's Wes Powell, I' can give you those, at the three -- which is what we’re now calling the project down at the Anschutz Medical Campus, we’re going to be at about 6.25% there. The Elm Creek townhome project in Elmhurst, we're going to be little north of 7%. And at Park Mosaic in Boulder will be between 5.5% and 6%.

Where do those compare versus market cap rates for high quality new assets?

Generally, that's about 150 to 200 basis points spread.

Okay. Thanks guys.

Our next question comes from Austin Wurschmidt of KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please go ahead.

Hey guys. Thanks for taking the questions. I was wondering if you could provide some additional detail behind the decision to buyback more stock than you could absorb from a taxable gain perspective. And then just also curious if the stock price move lower between now and the valuation date for the stock dividend, would you consider paying out 100% of the special dividend in cash?

Austin it's Terry. And your first question was around the sale and triggering economic gain. At Aimco the fact is that our properties are worth a lot more than what we pay for them and then their bases. And so any active management in the exercise of capital allocation produces taxable income. And with that taxable income, we have a choice between paying a tax at the REIT level or at the shareholder level. It's vastly more efficient for shareholders if we pay it at the shareholder level. So that's our thinking behind the sale and use of proceeds in a very accretive way and the distribution of the gain through the stock dividend. And as to your second question, no, we think that we fixed the amount of cash, we fixed the number of shares, and we think the dividend will transact in an efficient way.

Appreciates the thoughts there. And then you mentioned 2.1% blended lease rates in January, I believe, and just curious how that compares versus last year?

Austin this is Keith. And as we look at the lease rate looking year-over-year, they're pretty comparable. They're almost right on top of each other. And so what I'd really put your focus is on the occupancy. And so while we saw similar rates what we saw is really nice acceleration in our average daily occupancy.

So, how does the 97% you mentioned in January, how does that compare versus a year ago?

About 100 basis points over -- it's exactly 100 basis points over a year ago.

Okay. Thanks for the time guys.

Our next question comes from John Pawlowski of Green Street Advisors. Please go ahead.

Thanks. Curious on how you balance the moving properties under the disposition list and actually executing versus scale in some markets. So, taking the Atlanta, Chicago, Minneapolis, where there is just less concentration. As you start to sell down those markets, do you hit a unit count or a property count where at that point it just makes sense to exit the market in one fell swoop versus keeping people on the ground from an operating standpoint?

John, it's Terry and I'm happy to take a cut at that, Keith could add. There certainly can be operating inefficiencies created at a particular scale. But those have to be weighed against the cost of exit and the price we would receive and the properties we're selling. And so it's just a consideration, but it's not necessarily the decisive one. Keith?

John what I would add to that is that we take an opportunity to think about the uniqueness of each one of our communities and how we operate in them. And so while one could be in Minneapolis and be in a unique place, we also can apply unique operating platform against it, it gives us the opportunity to feel confident and operating in those spots.

Okay. Thanks for that. And then final one, John, maybe for you on the transaction market across your Illinois footprint and there's a bill going to the house right now similar to the Costa Hawkins California to repeal Illinois ban on rent control. Is it – do you expect it to cause any hiccup in the transaction market as 2019 – early 2019 unfolds?

Yeah. We haven't seen any – we've got properties and transacted one there just recently and we got others under contract. We don't see any impact from it.

Are folks talking about it?

Not – it would not be high on the list. It's not – as we've put stuff out to market in Illinois which has been a handful of properties. We've seen a very normal market response to it. And much more interested in rents and rates than they are in, what's going on in the legislature.

Understood. Thanks.

Our next question comes from Tayo Okusanya of Jefferies. Please go ahead.

Yes. Good afternoon. When we compare your guidance assumptions versus what we had in our models. I think where we vary the most is just in regards to how your acquisition and you disposition outlook of more lower acquisitions much higher dispositions. Could you just talk a little bit about the strategic decision this year to be a net seller kind of what's driving that? Is it need to deliver the balance sheet? Is it you seen some really attractive price out there? Just trying to understand that decision process and whether you – that initial guidance could be prone to change of the year progressive?

Tayo, this is Terry. I'll take a cut at it and then I'll ask Paul to cover any details that I miss. But I thought looking at your model that the biggest difference was around the tax benefit number. And I just mentioned that because it – 2019 is a good example of why I rely on net asset value rather than FFO as our primary financial metric. And I think the most important difference between FFO models and our guidance is the reduction of tax credit income to the – due to the redevelopment of Park Towne Place and its replacement by recurring cash flows from high-quality properties. And FFO models the result is flat. But the critical ask question is what is the right PE multiple to apply to that FFO? The NAV model answers that question based on objective third-party evaluations in hundreds and thousands of actual transactions by buyers and sellers. For non-recurring tax credit income, the right multiple is one. For recurring cash flows from high-quality properties the right multiple is 20 or 25, equivalent to 4% and 5% cap rate. So Aimco's guidance for 2019 FFO is flat year-over-year. It does not mean that Aimco's valuation is unchanged, and given the different quality of income, our guidance points to another good year for Aimco and for its shareholders. So Paul, would you want to add to that or talk about the specifics of properties being sold?

Yeah. Thank you, Terry. Terry, I think that covers very well, kind of the consideration of variances maybe from the consensus FFO growth to what we guided to and how we think about that differential. But when it relates to the question about, how we are balancing our sources and uses of cash for the year that $800 million of expected dispositions at the midpoint is used to fund on a leverage-neutral basis, our share repurchase activity which we are funding about $325 million of which in 2019 and then also our expected redevelopment spend that Wes spoke to earlier and CE investment. And so you take the sum of those four factors that bounces out exactly at that $800 million amount.

Got you, that’s helpful. Thank you.

Our next question comes from Hardik Goel of Zelman & Associates. Please go ahead.

Hey guys. Thanks for taking my question. Regarding the share repurchases looking ahead, what do you see as a good band in which kind of repurchase your stock? And if the stock continues to trade above that band what would the capital be useful in that case?

As we've discussed earlier, we're focused on all of the opportunities to make accretive investments for our shareholders. We look at it on a risk-adjusted basis. And broadly we look at redevelopment activities led by Wes, acquisitions or buyback of shares. And we'll look at those based on how they -- opportunities present themselves, and we analyze each of them on a consistent basis of a free cash flow internal rate of return. And we'll pick those that are best for our shareholders.

All right. Thanks.

Our next question comes from Haendel St. Juste of Mizuho. Please go ahead.

Hey good. I guess, its good morning out there. I guess, I'm curious on how the margins and IRRs are on what you're selling compared to what you are keeping the rest of your portfolio. Any color on that?

I can answer that in general, but if you want a more particular answer I might ask Lynn, if you have that in mind? Sure. She wants to speak to that.

Sure. The properties that you're selling would be the bottom of our stack ranking that we do across the portfolio. Therefore, we're selling of the bottom. The free cash flow IRRs for those properties that are currently being sold are six or less, while those properties that remain in our portfolio are well above that.

Any color on the margin differential?

NOI margin, Lynn do you have that at hand.

And I don't, but I'd be happy to follow up after the call with specifics.

But broadly, Haendel, and I'd the like to hear from you. Our -- we'll be selling properties with lower NOI margins and keeping them with higher margins. As you can see from the margin that Keith has achieved which was 74% -- 76% in the fourth quarter, 74% for the year, he is operating at a very high level. But the ones that are being sold are the ones that are in the bottom quartile of that range.

Appreciate that Terry. And I guess to follow on some of the earlier questions about the timing here. I'm curious when you started to think seriously about the significant buyback and planning for the mechanics of what you're executing here, the taxable gain, special dividend etcetera. When you look at the stock chart over the past year, the current price isn't well as attractive as other points in time to potentially execute on this. So just, curious again, the thinking or at least the timing of why now? Maybe some insights as to how you and the board have thought about it or discussed it over the past year?

Haendel, as you know, because you know the company well. We are very focused on net asset value and economic income. And we've been well aware of the discount of the share price to our net asset value per share as we calculate it. And as this verified by these sales we make. So the opportunity has been one that is something that we thought about a lot over a long period of time. What has changed is that we've been able to think through a tax-efficient way to do so. And that was only accomplished in the fourth quarter. And so that explains the timing.

Okay, Terry. Thank you.

Our next question comes from Nikita Bely of JPMorgan. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, guys. On the dispositions, given the size of the dispositions you expect in 2019, what is your guidance assumes on the timing of these because given the size you can really swing things, whether it's frontloaded or backend loaded. So if you could just tell us a little bit about maybe what's in the market already, what's the process on the sole right now? Is it front-year related or back half of the year?

Yes. Nikita, this is Paul. Thank you for the question. The timing of dispositions, of course are subject to change until they ultimately closed, but we have already closed a little over $140 million in January. We have another in real round numbers $250 million or so that we think is going to be closed between now and when we report our earnings for the first quarter. And then that sums about $4 million. So about half of our dispositions will occur in the first 3.5 months or so of the year and then the remaining is split about like 25% in the second quarter about 25% in the third and the remainder in the fourth.

Got it. Okay. And…

Sorry. Half of this percentage is like 12% in the second, 12% in the third and 25% in the fourth. Sorry about that.

Okay. I got it. No, it’s fine. I got it. And what are the -- what's the blended cap rate on full year of dispositions for 2019, are you assuming the model?

The ultimate cap rate will depend on assets sold, it will vary, but as we mentioned earlier, we continue to sell off the bottom. And so we would expect that to be higher than the cap rate of our overall portfolio, which is about 5%. But it's probably not going to be too far off of that number sort of say, mid-5s is the target.

About mid-5s. Okay. Got it. And on the tax benefits, will there be any tax benefits post-2019? Will that number -- because I know that's expected to kind of trickle out over time, but I guess the 19 the last year or will that go to zero in 2020?

Yes. So we have guided to about $8 million of tax benefit in 2019. There will always be some changes in the ultimate amount of benefit depending upon the activity of our taxable REIT subsidiary. But the amount of change or the rate of change year-over-year should not be significant going forward.

Got it. So basically that $8 million is kind of a run rate that one can assume going forward?

Plus or minus within a reasonable percentage.

Plus or minus. Got it. Right. Thank you.

[Operator Instructions] And our next question is a follow up from Rob Stevenson of Janney. Please go ahead.

Hi. Yeah. Thanks. Paul, what are the known items today that are expected to drive any difference in 2019 between NAREIT and pro forma FFO per share?

Yes. As today, Rob, any items that we have baked into our plans. So we would expect it to be very consistent.

Okay. And then what are you guys assuming for a weighted average share count for FFO calculations in the first quarter and for the full year in your guidance?

Rob, I don't have at the tip of my hand. But I would tell you is that, as we think about the share repurchases they will be obviously funded with asset sales which are dilutive, but the accretive benefit of reducing the share count outstanding is roughly offset. It's neutralized.

Okay. And right now like you have like 149 or so, is that right?

Yes.

Okay. All right. Thanks, guys.

Yes. And just to emphasize a point that we made in talking about our stock dividend reverse stock split, up on the issuance of the new shares in connection with the stock dividend, those shares will be immediately reversed so that stock dividend will have no impact on our outstanding share count.

Okay.

Rob, just for clarity, if $150 million or so is what's outstanding today, that's what's expected for the year in our guidance. And I don't want to think that guidance somehow is affected by what would be future decisions. As Paul points out, those future decisions may or may not be material to what our average share count is. But there's no built-in gain for some change in share count.

Okay. That’s helpful. Thank you.

You bet.

Our next question comes from Nick Joseph of Citi. Please go ahead.

It's Michael Bilerman here with Nick. Terry, so the use of the stock dividend is not new to you, right? You used to back in 2018 during the GFC as a way to conserve cash and pay upwards of 80% to 90% of that dividend in stock. So I'm just wondering, you talked a little bit about getting creative of having not done the share repurchases before until you came up with the structure. But effectively you're just distributing the gain as a stock dividend basically as a rights offering to shareholders. So I don't know why it couldn't have done that before. Like, what changed in the mechanics that made this more possible today than at any other times?

Michael, I think, what changed is the use of reverse split that a decade, as you pointed out, we did use stock dividends and it created uncertainty and confusion, I think, in the market, because of the lack of comparability before and after. And so in this case, the utilization of the reverse split is something that neutralizes that confusion.

I don't think the market really -- I mean, it is what it is, right? And I don't think having a reverse stock split all of a sudden negates what happens. I mean, it's clever, but I think at the end of the day investors want company to sell assets and buyback stock if there is that difference. But anyway, I guess, that's the unique thing that allowed you guys to execute it. How should investors think about the tax implication? Obviously, I assume the dividend, whether it's paid in cash or stock, is a taxable event, right? So for those that are getting additional script, they would have to come up -- and if they're a taxable holder, they would have to come up with the cash to pay their taxes on the gain?

Well, it all depends on their tax circumstances about which we're not expert. But as you all know, the vast majority of our shareholders are tax exempt or tax insensitive.

Like if you didn't -- did you consider that aspect? I mean, as significant holder, just personally, you have to pay taxes, right?

I am familiar with my own tax circumstances. And you're right, it's an unfriendly event for me as an individual in the sense of taking the tax alone. But when in the context of the value creation and the benefit to the company, it's one as a shareholder that I'm quite pleased with.

Right. And it is the opposite, right, the value of the remaining holding.

That's right.

And the future should be -- you may have to come up with a little more cash today to pay the taxes on that stock dividend that you're getting which doesn't create any value from a shareholder, right? Just the right and so much more so on the ramp of what's left over versus than what you're getting, because what they are getting is just a distributed amount its like the rights offering for a company?

It's really not like a rights offering because it's not capable of subject to being exercised. The company is not -- get any new cash from it. It's more like a stock split which is to say a redivision of something that's already existing. But the immediate reversal leads it back to a comparable unit for comparison before and after. The tax side is one that is different. And it's one that doesn't matter at all to shareholders that are tax exempted or tax insensitive and it's one that can matter to me and to other officers, other directors, other people that hold it as individuals. But in doing that we look at the bigger picture and what we gain and we think sometimes you have to pay tax on good things.

I was just thinking about a stock dividend in a sense of that all shareholders as they hold just to get the same percentage of the firm that they held before right that's just more shares outstanding you're going to reverse stocks, to reverse that, but that's effect with the comparison I was trying to make.

Correct. And I agree with that. I agree with that.

Okay. And is there any impact from 2019 sales that we should be -- would this -- is this been a reoccur again I guess at the end of the year potentially for this years sales?

Nick I think -- and we've tried to describe the tax from the property sold to fund the share buyback in the fourth quarter. And so there is -- and in fact we're pretty current with our estimated gains. But we've also been asked two or three times in the call whether we'd do more in the future? And we said, we'll look at all the possibilities that exist. If we do so then we could have the same situation again. If we don't, it wouldn't recur.

Got it. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Well, I thank you all for your interest in Aimco and perhaps fatuously given that our last call came from Michael Bilerman. I just want to say we look forward to meeting a lot of our shareholders next month at the Citi Conference in Florida. So thank you very much and see you there.

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