Good day and welcome, everyone, to the Alexandria Real Estate Equities Incorporated Fourth Quarter 2010 Year End Results Conference Call. Today’s call is being recorded. At this time, for opening remarks and introductions, I would like to turn the call over to Ms. Rhonda Chiger. Please go ahead ma’am.

Thank you and good afternoon. This conference call includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 as amended and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended. Such forward-looking statements include, without limitation, statements regarding our 2010 earnings per share diluted attributable to Alexandria Real Estate equity’s common stockholders; 2010 FFO per share diluted attributable to Alexandria Real Estate equity’s common stockholders; the business plan of certain tenants; and the expected impact of the retirement or conversion of our unsecured convertible notes. Our actual results may differ materially from those projected in such forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause such a difference include, without limitation, a failure to obtain capital, debt construction financing and/or equity or refinanced debt maturities; increased interest rates and operating costs; adverse economic or real estate developments in our markets; a failure to successfully complete and lease our existing space held for redevelopment and new properties acquired for that purpose and any properties undergoing development or failure to successfully operate or lease acquired properties; decreased rental rates or increased vacancy rates; or failure to renew or replace expiring leases, defaults on or a non-renewal of leases by tenants; general and local economic conditions; and other risks and uncertainties detailed in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. All forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this call, and we assume no obligation to update this information. For more discussion relating to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated in our forward-looking statements and risks to our business in general, please refer to our SEC filings. Now, I would like to turn the call over to Joel Marcus. Please go ahead.

Thank you, Rhonda, and thanks everybody for joining our fourth quarter and year end 2010 earnings call. We’re going to try to use maybe somewhat shortened management presentation so we have little more time for Q&A. As you know Alexandria has been build and has grown predominantly with a laser focus on the best intellectual and entrepreneurial adjacency cluster locations for the broad and diversified life science industry. A great adjacency location is absolutely key together with obviously a first-in-class facility, first-in-class sponsorship commitment to wisely invest capital, attention to first class sustainable business operations and clearly a focus on what the client tenant really needs all critical components for success that has and will continue to be our formula for success. Interesting to note, Ian Read who is Pfizer’s new CEO in has recent conference call made the following quote. We’re strengthening the fundamentals that drive biomedical innovation with the series of actions including more closely aligning our global R&D network footprint with key hubs for science and technology. We intend to enhance our presence in Cambridge, Massachusetts to complement our existing R&D with networks including those sites located in hubs like San Francisco, New York, La Jolla and Cambridge, UK and I’m pleased to note that Pfizer is located in Mission Bay, San Francisco location for their new therapeutic innovation group and our science center in New York and very pleased about that. As I review the cluster markets and talk about the quarter real quickly let me kind of highlight each of the markets briefly. On the West Coast starting in Seattle our focus has been on really the number one life science cluster submarket at Lake Union, really the best adjacency location, the highest ranks and really the highest quality tenants and minimized presence in places…

Thank you, Joel. We understand you’re very interested in more details of the significant transaction but as Joel alluded to. Please understand we’re bound by strict confidentiality and are limited to what we can disclose. We hope that the following will give you enough color to better understand the positive impact of the transaction and the impact to our tier models. The cash yield ex the additional FAR is 0% in the first year then ratchets up to 7% upon full delivery of the build-to-suit. The average cash yield over the lease term is approximately is 10.7%. The gap yield ex the additional FAR is approximately 10.5% initially and then moves to just under 11% upon full delivery of the build-to-suit. The effective rent is higher than the three most recent Class A lab office comps in the market. Illumina’s lease will comments no later than November and we’re obligated to deliver the build-to-suit in two phases no later than 2013 and 2014 with an opportunity to deliver ahead of the schedule. The tenant has the right to expand further in to three more buildings with square footage totaling approximately 297,000 square feet. It is anticipated that the tenant investment and build-to-suit buildings will be substantial. We expect Biogen to move out before the end of their 15 month term and pay full rent and operating expense through August. This will provide us the opportunity to deliver portions of the project to Illumina before their November start day with limited down time. Thank you very much and with that I’ll pass it over to Dean Shigenaga our Chief Financial Officer to discuss financial results.

Thanks Peter. Let me jump right in here. We reported FFO per share diluted of $4.40 which excludes the gain on land sales and before losses on early extinguishment of debt. This is really on target with FFO per share expectations that we had from the beginning of the year. We also reported EPS diluted of $2.19. Quarterly common dividends increased to $0.45 from $0.35, up 29% and really reflects our ability to share increases and cash flows with our shareholders. We reported the highest quarter and year of leasing at 1.1 million square feet and 2.7 million square feet respectively. This really is our 12th consecutive year of positive rental rate increases. Leasing included 350,000 square feet with our lease with Illumina and 130,000 square foot lease at the Alexandria Center for Life Science in New York City. Same property NOI growth was 1.3% and 2% on a GAAP and cash basis representing our 50th consecutive quarter of positive same-property NOI growth. Operating margins were 72% representing one of the highest operating margins in the REIT sector. Keep in mind over the past several years margins have declined primarily due to the impact of ground leased to assets. Ground lease grants are actually reported through operating expenses. Occupancy was solid at 94.3% for our operating properties, 88.9% including spaces undergoing redevelopment. During the quarter we delivered a significant amount of new spaces to the operating asset base either through ground up development for recently acquired assets. Both had a significant impact on straight-line rent adjustments either from normal straight-line rent related to long-term leases acquired with operating assets or two, free rent and normal straight-line rent on long-term leases delivered from our development projects. The good news is that, we recently delivered significant spaces under long-term leases from both…

Operator, if you could open it up for Q&A. Thank you. Operator?

(Operator Instructions) And we’ll take our first question from Sheila McGrath with KBW. Sheila McGrath – KBW: Yes, good afternoon. I did want to ask a few other questions on this San Diego acquisition hopefully you’ll be able to answer them. Just in terms of on the 0% return in the first year and the 7 and then 10.5, is that you mean in 2011 and ‘12 and ‘13, is that how we should look at it?

Yeah, I think Sheila this Dean here, excuse me for a little vagueness on the answer but the free rent period in the first year will be based on a start data of November. But I said also caution as we’re trying to work with limited accelerate the time of when they get into their space. The exact timing we don’t have good handle on but we’ll be able to report over the next couple of quarters. Sheila McGrath – KBW: Okay, okay and then if you just could give us some insight, did you have Illumina in mind as a tenant when you bought the acquisition?

The answer was we had four likely candidates and they were certainly on the list. Sheila McGrath – KBW: Okay, and then if when you purchased this asset if you compare it to your returns thus far on East River is this going to end up being a bigger kind of IRR contributor than even East River?

Well they are different because this is a an existing asset and the Alexandria Center for Life Science in New York is obviously a development but they’re really kind of different but I would assume this would be a higher yield if you looked at on a basically a yield basis. Sheila McGrath – KBW: Okay and...

Given the nature of the lease that we’re able to negotiate. Sheila McGrath – KBW: Okay and Dean, could you give us some insight on the pricing and leverage metrics that you’re seeing from the life companies right now in the CMBS market on secured debt?

I can’t Shiela, broadly speaking and I say that cautiously because you know from my comments earlier that we’re actually not in the market on the CMBS side of the life-side today and so I don’t have a term sheet to give you an accurate number but I would say its, life companies remain aggressive, the CMBS deals in my opinion probably fall one step behind it on pricing and on the life-side and banks I would say for shorter tenure deals probably are extremely aggressive today and our pricing probably tighter but on a shorter tenure basis I’d say your seven to 10 year paper from either the CMBS or the life market would probably put you somewhere plus or minus 5%. The bank side for Alexandria, shorter tenured paper I’d probably say something approaching 200 over LIBOR. Sheila McGrath – KBW: Okay. Thank you.

Thanks Sheila.

And next we’ll hear from Jay Habermann with Goldman Sachs. Jay Habermann – Goldman Sachs: Hi, good afternoon, here with Connor (ph) as well, Joel just focusing on the JV capital, I guess can you give us some sense of the timing for some of the JVs and likely cost of that capital, maybe some of that yield you’re looking for in terms of sales and I guess the types of capital that you’re talking to you at this point?

When you say JVs meaning on – are you referring to projects or just specific or generalization? Jay Habermann – Goldman Sachs: Well, project specifically and I guess in general as well, the types of capital versus you’re talking too.

Yeah, I mean we had reported back, Jay, I don’t know couple of years ago, when we started the New York project and I think it was right before the crash actually we had a term sheet negotiated for the East Tower with a JV partner, I’m trying to remember it’s been too long ago. But I believe it was more or less a 50-50 deal and we view that capital would be helpful. We were actually looking, I think at that point at maybe building the east and west tower together but obviously the downturn changed that. So I think as I recall it was probably both towers now that I think back about that. But I think when it comes to a large scale project and also that was not available really at that time for us and certainly latter it was not on that size of spec construction project. Today, I think the JV sources the capital, in fact I met with one very, very prominent JV person in New York, not too long ago, had discussed The Binney Street Project. If we kick off a large scale project as oppose to a single home (ph) JV capital something we clearly would look at as an important source of capital. I don’t know if that helps answer the breadth of your questions but that’s kind of what we’ve done to date. Jay Habermann – Goldman Sachs: Okay. No, that’s helpful. And then in terms of returns on development, can you focus on Cambridge a little bit and perhaps compare returns that you’re talking about for those projects versus what you’re seeing on redevelopment?

Yeah. I mean our redevelopment, the biggest one we’ve done was really a pretty huge success. I think we achieved, when we did a case study a number of quarters ago maybe about, I don’t know four, five, six quarters ago on our 200 Tech Square building where I believe our returns on incremental capital we put in approached about 16, 17%. We signed anchor releases in that building, when we bought it, 200 Tech Square was going to be an updated and redone office building, we ended up being able to convert it to lab. Rents went significantly up, our anchors there were Pfizer, Novartis and Glaxo and that I think is one of our most successful projects, a big scale. And I think today we’re going to be embarking this year on redevelopment of 400 Tech Square. We don’t have pricing yet, we don’t know whether it would go new office or new converted labs because there is actually very significant demand for both in Cambridge today. It’s very, very hot companies or entities. So, we would hope to achieve obviously double-digit returns on our incremental capital into that project. When it comes to development on the Binney Street corridor, I think we would target something in the range of a high single-digit probably likely given underground parking and other amenities that we’ve had to provide to city. I would say if could reach anywhere between 8.5 and a 10 on unlevered basis, that would be pretty strong. Jay Habermann – Goldman Sachs: Okay. And just lastly in terms of uses of capital, can you talk about the potential, you mentioned dividend increase versus conserving capital obviously to fund the external growth and potential land acquisitions as well as maybe even debt pay-down?

Yeah. We have obviously back over the last couple of years since the dividend cut that many REITS were implementing. In fact, I remember being in San Diego in November ‘08 when I think we did our first day 13 one-on-one meetings. In 12 of those meetings, people begged us to cut the dividend, it was kind of, a surreal situation as you probably recall. But I think as we go forward, we would like to see we just did make a significant, the board did a significant increase in the dividend. And I think you’ll see that going forward in a measured way so that we’re sharing the upside in cash flows with our shareholders but at the same time retaining as much as we can because it’s the cheapest source of capital. I don’t know Dean if you want to add anything to that.

No, I think Joel summarized it at the end they’re very nicely like we did earlier been able to share the increase in net cash flows to our business while retaining some as the primary objective going forward. Jay Habermann – Goldman Sachs: Okay. Thank you.

Thanks.

And moving forward, we will hear from Jamie Feldman with Bank of America. Jamie Feldman – Bank of America: Thank you. Can you talk a little bit about the significance of Pfizer, Center for Therapeutic Innovation coming to your center. I mean it looks like from the press release, they put out that there’re other organizations that will be housed within it. So, I’m trying to figure out is that kind of competitive to your space or is this just a toehold and maybe they can expand from here. But I’m just trying to get a sense of significance of that lease in specific?

Yeah, the Center for Therapeutic Innovations is really a brainchild that’s emerged over the last couple of years since Pfizer has gone through a pretty gut wrenching reorganization starting with Jeff Kindler and now with the new CEO. Clearly they want to exit more and more of their siloed campus location which aren’t really adjacent to the innovative and entrepreneurial locations and part of that was the establishment of kind of a standalone entity called the Therapeutic Innovation Center. Their goal is to create put in something in at least initially and it may grow over time obviously depending upon product opportunities somewhere between 40 and 60 scientists in a very high-intensity, high-quality lab and they are not doing Pfizer research. They are not developing either small molecules or biologics. What they’re aimed at doing their sole goal is to access innovative technologies and opportunities from the significant academic and institutional centers that are adjacent to these locations. So they have already embarked upon setting it up at Mission Bay obviously. I think they’ve signed the deal that was announced, maybe by Jeff Kindler before he left as CEO with UCSF and my guess is they probably will find others there. So they’re not leasing space or doing anything but it’s solely external collaboration and same thing in New York when they move I think in the next couple of months. That group will be aimed at and they’ve signed as you saw the press release that Pfizer put out, they’ve signed some 7, 8, 9 I can’t remember how many collaborative agreements with major New York City institutions and again it’s aimed at collaborating with those institutions not doing internal Pfizer research. They’re looking at other site as Ian had mentioned in his in the quote I gave to really access worldwide innovation. So this is where big pharma is really headed in, less focused on places like we’re out in Connecticut et cetera. Jamie Feldman – Bank of America: And then what’s the appetite for growth for that, I mean, could they be, is that anything large enough to do like an anchorage tenant second building?

I don’t know that this will be because these are obviously projects that take time but they’re early stage projects, so thus the 250 to 300,000 square feet of demand, real demand that we have right now and we’re working pretty hard on it in New York for example. One is a biotech company, the other is a major institution in that a particular disease areas. Those are the two big ones. There is a bunch of small ones. So, we’re not accounting Pfizer in that. But I would expect overtime if Pfizer is successful and accessing innovative technologies that could move from R to D that they would expand in New York City. Jamie Feldman – Bank of America: Okay. And then could you just walks through your 2011 remaining expiring leases kind of the big ones that have some vacancy risk?

Yeah I try to do that a bit in my kind of geographic review but let me just go to that page, bear with me one moment here. So, it’s page 40 of the supplements and I’ll just run down each of the markets. So in San Diego, we’ve got a total of 550,000 square feet expiring and as you can see the bulk of that is already leased. So, we don’t see much risk there. The Bay Area, we got about 100 – 269,000. Most of it still is remaining and so we see that as a modest challenge but we think we can work certainly up to that challenged in the greater bofinary about 484,000 square feet almost 200,000 of which is the 400 Tech Square which we have a high degree of interest in, probably single building users and about 120,000 that’s’ remaining that isn’t resolved. So, we think that inordinately handle able New York, New Jersey suburban about 38,000, which is pretty small, southeast is pretty small DC. We’ve got one big one we’re working on and the balance is pretty small and Seattle is pretty small. The Gates Foundation building which is coming back to us which is an office building, we’re converting it for lab we’ve already signed a major league there and we see that is resolving. So, we don’t see inordinate challenges in the releasing risk for 2011.

And then Jamie just to add some color there. In the marketing actually the tail column, most of the leases are below 20,000 square feet in size. And I think there is only one lease that is north of that and it’s in the 50,000 square foot range. So, it is spread across a number of smaller spaces with no large lumpy exposure.

Yeah and in San Diego if Dean will make sure my recollection is correct, I think he is pointed out the 34, 36 annual base rent expiring in San Diego, a big part of that is the Biogen Idec lease and if you back that out, that number drops to about 25 bucks or something, so that’s important to remember too.

Yeah, that is correct. So and then if you think of market rents across the three major submarkets down there that might initially draw some concern, but at $25 of expiring rents excluding the Biogen space because that’s really been a result we’re in pretty good shape. Jamie Feldman – Bank of America: Okay. And then finally actually Dean so if you look at the increase in FAS 141 and straight line rent in quarter, can you give us a sense of how, the timing and those actually burning off and turning into real cash?

Sure, 141 I think I commented on that by the, after the second quarter of ‘11, 141 will drop down to about $1 million a quarter. And straight line rents will run a little high for a while for two reasons, one a lot of deliveries on the developments and large leases that have been executed. As those burn off space by space to cash flows that’ll tail off. However, as I mentioned them in my prepared comments you also have the Illumina lease coming in, timing to be determined over the next few quarters but no later than November of this year which will contribute meaningfully to Straight line rent adjustments that are going to be fairly significant for a number of quarters. Jamie Feldman – Bank of America: It sounds like that’s at least flat is not increasing by year end, straight line?

No I don’t it’ll increase relative to the current quarter straight line rents a number of roughly $9 million. I think I was forecasting somewhere to be in the low $30 million range on straight line rents for 2011 that kind of frames the range that we would expect. Jamie Feldman – Bank of America: Okay, thank you.

Thanks Jim.

Okay and our next question will come from Will Marks with JMP Securities. William Marks – JMP Securities: Hello Joe, Dean and everyone. Just a question on very, very broad question on acquisitions and development, and who you’re seeing in terms of competition, I don’t expect you to name, names but are there some new players that are building this type of space at all and are the number of acquires, has the number of acquires increased in terms of your competing with when you look for a deal?

Well, virtually everything we did this year was up market. So in that sense, we didn’t have any competition to speak up. But I think deals we saw and we passed on, there was one deal in Sorrento Valley in San Diego, another deal in the Bay Area of South San Francisco. There have been a number of deals we’ve seen that we passed on. So I don’t know necessarily the number of bidders and kind of what their makeup is. But I think it’s fair to say, I did quote a couple of quarters ago, there was a deal that we really like and went after but lost to a pension fund back in June in the Massachusetts region, which we thought was kind of emblematic of what you’re talking about. It was a – I don’t remember how big it was but it was about a 60, 70,000 square foot building, B building, B location but triple-A credit tenant and lease through 20, 28. And there were quite a number of bidders because people view that as an almost like a borrow on. So I think, it depends on the nature of what the acquisition is. William Marks – JMP Securities: And then what about development, is there?

Well, in developments, we own our sites, we obviously... William Marks – JMP Securities: Well, I just mean others, are you seeing any kind of increasing activity.

The only group that, the only group that I have seen recently in any of our markets actively developing with the Boston Properties on a site in Cambridge that we believe they’re going forward with and I believe that will be a lab building and but other than that I would say we haven’t seen any development in the markets at the moment. William Marks – JMP Securities: Okay.

And most people don’t really have, most people frankly don’t have great land sites. You can have land sites, but if they are not really AAA land sites your competition for a really high quality tenants isn’t very good. William Marks – JMP Securities: Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

And we are moving forward we will hear from Michael Bilerman with Citi. Michael Bilerman – Citi: Hi this is Mark (indiscernible) with Michael Bilerman. Looking at China and India I’m hoping you can provide a rough timeline of how long you expected to fully build out the current projects there? I think there is just 7 million square feet, also shed some light on the plan behind the added 2.4 million square feet of potential building India and just the overall long-term pieces on the regions? Thanks.

Sure, great question Mark. So taking China first we have a – our first really test development there was a building in South China for a variety of reasons we choose that location. We also had our early partner that decided to exit. And that really got our feet wet in doing our own, having our own team and our own ability to build in China high quality buildings and we do have good activity on that building of 280,000 square feet, if not a lab building we ultimately want to lease it and sell it because we have no desire to be there. In the North we have a land use REIT that we can build. It’s a little bit like Mission Bay near a rate one of the top five technology centers in all of China. We have our first two buildings underdevelopment about 300,000 feet 150 each. It’s really – they are today, the only first class lab facilities for lease in China. We just had team there. We’re putting together our whole marketing plan, that construction is going well, we hope to have space available actually, some prebuilt space for moving late in the year. And our big challenge in that project in addition to executing it but which we’ve done I think very successfully so far is really getting incentive packages from both the local and national government to be granted to us to give to tenants as opposed to having tenants have to shop around the 30 locations in China comparing a benefit. We’ve now secured that as of – I think I may have mentioned in our Investor Day, I can’t remember but we have finally secured that on our last call and now we can actually go out and put forth an…

We think so correct and a significant part of which we already have committed tenants in India, existing tenants. Michael Bilerman – Citi: Okay. Great, thank you very much.

You’re welcome.

Moving forward we will hear from Tony Paolone with J.P. Morgan. Anthony Paolone – JP Morgan: Thanks, good afternoon. Dean I think you mentioned $340 million of development spending this year. Can you give us a sense of how much of that is for projects that are underway right now versus starting new stuff for instance like Binney Street build to suit?

Sure, you probably picked up from the pages of our redevelopment projects and development projects that there are – we estimating 110 million and 70 million respectively of constructions spending for those projects. You probably also noted in the real estate section for projects in China and India that we’re forecasting construction spend in roughly $60 million range. We also have a couple future re-developments where we’re likely they are not in redevelopment today but we anticipate spending some money later this year which is probably in the range of $26 million. The rest includes spending both in our development site in Denny (ph) to accelerate our opportunity to go vertical as well as an estimate for unknown projects which we know are quite possible to occur. Anthony Paolone – JP Morgan: Okay, just to make sure I got that so when in your prepared comments the 340 million was that just development, or was that just development and redevelopment spending?

That was all construction spending.

Worldwide.

Yeah, it’s everything redevelopment, development Asia, pre-construction projects, every construction dollar we expect to spend this year. Anthony Paolone – JP Morgan: Okay and then just to make sure I got you answer right, there was 70 million, I think in the supplemental on the ground up, 60 million in Asia, and then I think you mentioned 26 was it in the redevelopment?

26 of future redevelopment projects that are not in the redevelopment schedule and 110 in actual redevelopment. Anthony Paolone – JP Morgan: Okay, so it sounds like...

Another 50 that would be kind of other potential, yeah. Anthony Paolone – JP Morgan: Okay, the 50 or I’m getting something closer like 100 million of stuff that’s otherwise...

Yeah, let me rail through 110 on redevelopment, 70 on development, roughly 60 million in Asia, 26 on new redevelopments that are not in the redevelopment pipeline today. Roughly 16 million on pre-construction substantially all related to Binney and the remainder is unidentified. It’s a projection of spending that we think is likely the curve, but not specific to any project.

Which could be over 50 million, so should put to about 340. Anthony Paolone – JP Morgan: Yeah, got it. Thank you. The other question I have is your New York center now, you talked a lot about the bigger tenants as being key anchors for the Westar (ph) but then it seems like over the quarters there were a lot of smaller tenants that had demand. Can you give us a sense as to where those types of tenants ended up going and kind of what that looks like if you do start a second tower?

When you say smaller tenants who may have had interest in the East Tower you mean? Anthony Paolone – JP Morgan: Correct. I know you had mentioned some smaller ones, but not likely anchored size for the West Tower?

Yeah. Well, there are hosts of smaller tenants that looked at the East Tower and some of those were up at the Columbia incubator, some of them were in the suburbs Connecticut, New Jersey et cetera. And if you’re comparing prices and then having versus those, it’s obviously easier to kind of stay in those locations. I think the West Tower will be the anchors are probably the two that I mentioned if and when we decide to go forward with. That one is a large well known independent translational entity focused on a particularly disease area much like the Neuroscience Institute we have in the West Tower but it’s a standalone, it’s not, doesn’t have an affiliation per se aimed at commercializing products. And then secondly, there’s a pretty fast growing biotech company that has its eyes on a lot of space north of 100,000 square feet and this would be the logical location. So, those are the two most important current anchors that we would see. There could be some smaller tenants, I can’t tell you today exactly but we certainly have a list of one that have looked and express some interest but we haven’t, I mean we don’t really account those as logical or credible to kick off a project of that size although we do clearly own curtain wall and steel today. Anthony Paolone – JP Morgan: Okay, got you. And then just last question clarify, I think you had mentioned earlier an 8.5 to 10% type return on Binney Street project.

And that cash unlevered. Anthony Paolone – JP Morgan: And is that going in or is that an IRR?

Yeah, because that’s initial. Anthony Paolone – JP Morgan: Okay, got it. Thank you.

You’re welcome thanks Tony.

(Operator Instructions). And moving forward we’ll hear from Jim Sullivan with Cowen and Company. James Sullivan – Cowen and Company: Hi, I have two questions. First of all in terms of same store NOI number reported, the expenses were up 4.2% in the quarter and I’m just curious what the major driver of that was and whether we should expect that to continue and also Dan if you could address what kind of expense growth is baked into the 2 to 4% forecast for ‘11.

All right, Jim its Dean here. This, the same store performance in fact the entire portfolio we should keep in mind that with the majority of our leases being triple that very little leakage to the bottom-line from fluctuations in operating expenses year-to-year or even quarter-to-quarter whether it’s hot summer period, cold winter or just fluctuations in utility rates. So the good news is as you look at other property types you do need to be concerned about fluctuations and operating expenses but for Alexandria, the fluctuations are passed through whether OpEx runs high or low, the tenants will bear either the expense or the benefit from lower operating cost. In this case expenses were running a little bit I think primarily from utility related cost. So I don’t expect it to be sustainable. I think year-to-year, quarter-to-quarter we see most of our OpEx variations at the utility level, occasionally a little bit on the insurance level and occasionally some at the property tax level. James Sullivan – Cowen and Company: Okay, second question this is really for Joel and Joel I was intrigued when you talked about the Illumina transaction. You had talked about, I think a response to a question from Sheila that there were four potential candidates for that space and I am curious whether the other three potential candidates have found alternative locations and number one. Number two whether their requirements represent net additional absorption or trading places or both?

Yeah, so what I can tell you is that several of those we are certainly engaged in finding other suitable facilities for it. So stay tuned and I will comment about a net positive absorption, yes some of it would be absolutely net positive absorption. And I think Illumina is a good example. There are number of entities that seek growth. They have existing facilities but they’re just not able to grow to the extent they need to grow to satisfy the platform and the business opportunity and so we hope to be there to provide that opportunity for them. James Sullivan – Cowen and Company: Good.

And that’s why we been pretty bullish on our prospects in San Diego. James Sullivan – Cowen and Company: Thanks.

Yeah, thank you.

And next we’ll hear from John Stewart with Green Street Advisors. John Stewart – Green Street Advisors: Thank you. Joel this is a couple of follow up questions on the Illumina deal, first of all I am curious what role if any Dan Ryan played in bringing that across the finish line?

None whatsoever. Just kidding, Dan and his team and Peter really were the critical elements in that and I think when you’ve got first-in-class team and you’ve got a first in class site, nothing is ever easy but it really made it much more possible to execute such a complicated and such a large size transaction really in record time. John Stewart – Green Street Advisors: I guess, was that sort of a deal that Dan brought with him or was that a Alexandria at entity level, all pistons coming together to get the deal done?

Well, I think it’s probably the latter in the sense that the sales of the Biogen Idec transaction really emerged before the time that we finalized arrangements with Dan. But I think it’s fair to say that it’s really a combination of all of those factors and again what you need is great leadership and Pete brought that to the table. John Stewart – Green Street Advisors: Thanks. And I am sorry, if I missed this when Pete was going over it but I caught it said, I think November 1 start date for lease but what exactly is the free rent period?

You’ve got a significant period on the front end with no cash rents in the first 12 months of the lease. John Stewart – Green Street Advisors: Got it. And then it phases in year two?

Yeah. And then the cash rents actually will accelerate in overtime. John Stewart – Green Street Advisors: Got it, okay. If I could maybe Joel get you to comment and first of all, thank you for the continued improvements in disclosure and looking at the leasing economics, pretty impressive particularly overtime and I guess the one thing that is sort of missing from the disclosure is pre-rent. So I could, if I could just get you to comment on the prevalence of free rent in terms of leasing on a general basis?

Yeah. I don’t know that you can ever make a generalization. I think you really have to deal with the market reality and so today if we were to lease or do a deal in Binney Street which we’re working on some things or on our conversion at Tech Square. You really have to be responsive to a marketplace. And so the marketplace really dictates what roughly is marketing any given point in time and it changes pretty rapidly. And I don’t know that I can be more specific. There is no, it is always very market dependent and very time dependent in a given point in time. John Stewart – Green Street Advisors: And I guess....

The other thing I would add... John Stewart – Green Street Advisors: Sorry, go ahead.

Sorry, John, No one thing I’d add, is that when you’re dealing with some large lease transactions for 15 or 20-year terms, you’ll have a component of free rent if that’s market at the time and it’s not an unusual environment that we’ve seen in the last year on our leasing front with any free rent that we’ve deal with this year. John Stewart – Green Street Advisors: Sure, fair enough. Okay, and then lastly Joel, without speaking necessarily to these specific acquisitions in the fourth quarter, but we obviously just don’t get as any many data points in the lab sector in terms of values. Could you speak particularly when you consider the trend more broadly in terms of real estate values and interest rates, can you speak to cap rates for you product?

Well, I think what I mentioned earlier in one of the questions, the project that came some market, widely marketed in Massachusetts in June went for I believe 64 cap rate that’s without any frills, B building, B location, AAA credit and very long term lease. We certainly have thought to buy product that under replacement cost, that isn’t always the case with a lot of buyers out there people are paying sometimes extraordinary prices which seem a little whacky sometimes to us, but I think again it’s very dependent upon, is there a value-added component, is it an off market transaction, is it widely marketed, I mean the widely marketed transactions frankly are going to be very aggressive in pricing. And I don’t think that, necessarily an indication of either higher low cap rates, I think it’s just – it is what it is a point in time. And I would say, some of the cap rates I think you guys have assigned out there probably seem on the high side. John Stewart – Green Street Advisors: And you haven’t seen a shift necessarily in the last 90 days?

No, I’d say it’s been going on since we all emerged from the two-year debacle and that’s probably started in the spring. So, I don’t think there has been a noticeable shift. I mean you could look at one transaction or another and say does that make a data point back, I don’t think so. But I think if you’ve got a first class location you’ve got a first class facility and you have term and credit that isn’t even a lab product anymore that becomes, almost a desirable acquisition for anybody like the one I described pension fund the one I’d said, they just viewed it as a bond. So I think that’s prevalent, not only in this product I said broadly out there today. But if there are poor locations, poor quality and you’ve got some value out then I think the world kind of changes on that. So, I mean if you look at our markets, Lake Union kind of Mission Bay, the good places at San Diego you look at Cambridge, you look at Gaithersburg, Rockville in Maryland and New York city, I mean the cap rates there. If we’re to sell flagship assets with term and top quality tenants. Those things would be at very aggressive cap rates today. John Stewart – Green Street Advisors: Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

And we’ll take our final question from Suzanne Kim with Credit Suisse. Suzanne Kim – Credit Suisse: Thank you so much. I do appreciate disclosures this quarter. The first question is to just to clarify on the dividend rates. I’m just wondering what sort of metrics that we should sort of look at to focus on. I know you said you’re going to increase it with net cash flow but I’m wondering if you’re looking at a payout ratio or targeting a payout ratio. And then secondly with regards to your pre-construction pipeline, I know that big chunk of it is Binney and the other chunk is the tower in New York City. I’m wondering what is, what the first two priorities are, what you kind of see as most feasible in near term as coming online?

Yes, so let me maybe answer the second question and I’ll let Dean the answer to first. Between New York and Binney, I think we see a piece of Binney probably going sooner than New York although frankly if we wanted to start New York today we could but we’re mindful of a whole lot of things we’re working on and some of the goals that we set for ourselves that we don’t want to push things too rapidly it doesn’t make sense. But I do see early start to maybe one of the Binney buildings if we can secure are an important anchor tenant. I think that’s how I would line it up. Dean, you want to comment on the dividend?

Yeah, Suzanne its Dean here. As far as the dividend strategy the increase as well as future increases I think we committed in both situations that our strategy is to share increases in net cash flows with our shareholders while also allowing us to retain increases and net cash flows to recycle or reinvest into our business. I guess, I should additionally point out that we don’t forecast any shortfalls in our dividend deductions to meet a 100% or zero taxable income I should say going out over the next few years. So, really it comes down to our desired to share increases in net cash flows with our shareholders. Suzanne Kim – Credit Suisse: Great. Thank you so much.

And our payout ratio is historically book pre and post-crash, has been I think among the lowest in the industry. So, we have I think a good basis going forward. But as I was mentioned earlier, we certainly want to retain as much free cash flow as possible as well to reinvest in the business. Suzanne Kim – Credit Suisse: Thank you.

Thank you.

And that is all the questions we have at this time. I’d like to turn the conference back over to you, sir for any additional or closing remarks.

Well, thank you everybody very much and we’ll talk to you in May on our first quarter call.

And that concludes today’s conference. We thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.