Good afternoon and welcome to Boston Properties first quarter earnings call. (Operator Instructions) At this time I'd like to turn the conference over to Arista Joyner, Investor Relations Manager for Boston Properties. Please go ahead, ma'am.

Good afternoon and welcome to Boston Properties first quarter earnings conference call. The press release and supplemental package were distributed last night as well as furnished on Form 8-K. In the supplemental package the company has reconciled all non-GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable GAAP measure in accordance with Reg. G requirements. If you did not receive a copy of these documents, these are available in our Investor Relations section of our website at www.BostonProperties.com. An audio webcast of this call will be available for 12 months in the Investor Relations section of our website. At this time we would like to inform you that certain statements made during this conference call which are not historical may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Although Boston Properties believes the expectations reflected in any forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, it can give no assurance that its expectations will be attained. Factors and risks that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements were detailed in Wednesday's press release and from time to time in the company's filings with the SEC. The company does not undertake a duty to update any forward-looking statements. Having said that I'd like to welcome Mort Zuckerman, Chairman of the Board, Ed Linde, Chief Executive Officer, Doug Linde, President, Ray Ritchey, Executive Vice President and National Director of Acquisitions and Development, and Mike LaBelle, Chief Financial Officer. Also during the question-and-answer portion of our call, our regional management team will be available to answer questions as well. I would now like to turn the call over to Doug Linde for his formal remarks.

Good afternoon, everybody. We realize it's been a busy day with conference calls. We will try and be as scintillating as we possibly can, give you as much information as we can about how we're seeing things as well as our perspective, and Mort I think will talk a little bit about the economy later on. But we'll get started and we'll try and wrap this up as close to 2:00 as we can so you can get on to that next call. I think we're all hearing alternating optimistic and pessimistic views, including signs of renewed confidence and economic activity balanced against increasing job reductions, unemployment and personal and corporate financial distress. Everybody's searching for indications that the economy has reached its terminal velocity, that the rate of decline is no longer accelerating. And we are, as most people are, hopeful that the United States and the global stimulus is going to start to jump demand forward, that the bulk of inventory destocking has already occurred, that non-financial companies that have substantial reductions in labor costs and in inventory are going to see some benefits from the stimulus, and that enhanced confidence-inspired spending hopefully will go along with that, and that the policies of the Fed and the other governmental bodies will act to stabilize and reconstruct our financial system. But that being said, we're in the office business and we are dependent upon job growth and our typical and traditional tenants are knowledge-based companies, primarily in the service sectors, and we recognize that unemployment has not started going down yet, it hasn't peaked, and we're probably not going to see growth in the office business - and my definition of growth is increases in rental rates - until the later stages of recovery. While we have a very…

Thank you, Doug. Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to start by supplementing Doug's comments and talk about the capital side of our leasing activity. The second generation leasing costs were up for the quarter at just over $40 per square foot. This is due to over 50% of the leasing activity for the quarter being in New York City, where the long-term leases and strong rental rates resulted in high leasing commission. The second generation costs on the New York City activity alone was $56 per square foot and it was broken down between weighted average tenant improvement costs of $22 per foot and weighted average leasing weighted average leasing commissions of $34 per square foot. I would also note that the transactions that we're seeing now in New York fall into two camps - pre-built space, where we have created move-in condition space for $75 to $95 per square foot in a variety of suite sizes and space that is currently in move-in condition from the prior tenant, where minimal additional tenant improvements are necessary. In our other markets we have seen tenant improvement costs coming down as tenants are looking to sign shorter-term deals and/or reduce their own capital costs. We are also seeing competitors in our market that are challenged to invest significant tenant improvement dollars, if any at all. Those landlords that are in tough financial shape or have over leveraged properties may be unwilling or unable to fund capital, putting others, like us, who have flexibility, at a competitive advantage. Moving on to our first quarter results, last night we reported first quarter funds from operations of $1.11 per share inclusive of a one-time charge related to the suspension of work at our 250 West 55th Street Development of $27.7 million or $0.19 per share.…

Thank you very much. A take-off from something that was mentioned earlier, which is New York City and the future of New York City. It is my view that New York City will emerge from this financial crisis as an even stronger city in the world of finance globally than it was before, not so much because of just what's happening in New York but, frankly, what's also happening in a major competitive city like London, which I think is where the financial world is just disintegrating. And that will really lead, I think, many people to look to New York in finance to a degree that really will be unprecedented in terms of market share and there'll be a lot of need for financing. So I think New York is going to have a considerable resurgence once this particular phase of the financial and economic crisis turns. As for the wider situation, it's hard really to share some of the optimism about the economy in general, for me at least, and the reasons for that are that - let me just give you one thing - there was a very large poll, economic poll, of consumers in which they estimated that they would be increasing their savings rate to 14% of income. Now this is in the midst of a foul economic mood but, still, 14% is the average and they expect it to extend for a number of years, primarily because they feel they have to rebuild their retirement funds, which have been decimated by A) the drop in the value of the equity in their homes, and B) the drop in the value of their financial assets. Now that tells you something about the mood that has hit the consumers of this country. They'll be deferring many…

Yes, we'll open it up to questions, Operator, so why don't you start, please?

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from Sloan Bolen - Goldman Sachs.

First, a quick question on the development side at West 55th. You said you're basically going to finish the foundation. At what point - and it's probably a ways off - but what do you need to see in order to continue with that project? Would it be more in the way of pre-leasing? What would you expect in terms of rents or what would you look for in terms of returns?

I'll answer the question in two ways. I think to be realistic about it we're going to need significant pre-leasing, but we're also going to need significant pre-leasing at a level on an incremental basis that makes sense because we're going to think about the incremental dollars going into the project at this point as opposed to what the total return on the asset is. And I think that, based upon our view of where current market rents are and where current large user demand is, it's going to be awhile before we start that building up again.

I'd like to add something to that, Doug, if I may. Again, consistent with what I said before, there is no new space coming on the market and if, in a couple of years, for example, there is a real turnaround in the activities of the financial world in New York, then I think we will be able to produce new space in a period of time that is foreshortened by the extent to which we have unfortunately - what we've done so far and where we had to stop it, we're really in a position to move much more quickly than anybody else starting any other new project. So in that sense we'll be able to respond very quickly. And we will have a real competitive advantage if somebody is looking for a large amount of space, a large tenant user, in a fairly short period of time because everybody is sitting back and waiting for the turnaround and when that turnaround comes and people really begin to feel the constraints of whatever their existing space may be, I think we'll be in a unique position on that side.

Switching to development that's a little bit in the nearer view, at Russia Wharf, just given the size of the loan - it's a little bit less than you'd expected - could you provide us an update on what your expectations for returns on that project might change? And then if there's any update on the unleased portion of the building and, lastly, what you're expecting to do with the multi-family or the condo portion of the project.

That's a lot of questions. Let me try and be succinct. The project is currently permitted as a 550,000 square foot office building, a 90,000 square foot residential building, and then about a 215,000 square foot residential/retail building. We are working in conjunction with the city and the BRA to re-permit the 215,000 square feet to office. That has not gone through its full process yet, although there's been relatively positive feedback from the various community boards as well as the city of Boston and the BRA. The other building will remain a residential building. We have not attempted to start leasing any of that other space yet. It's been off of the radar and it's been out of the market, and, in fact, inquiries that we've received from tenants have been basically we've told them come talk to us again towards the later portion of the spring, early summer, when we know exactly what our permitting status is going to be, what our delivery times are going to be and what we can deliver from a use perspective. From a return perspective, I think the return levels are probably similar to where they were because the vast majority of the space was leased to Wellington, and I think those numbers were in the mid 7s when we started the project and I don't think they're going to change much in the way up or down. And the building is going to be delivered in the first quarter of 2011, so that's when that will hit.

(Operator Instructions) Your next question comes from Mark Biffert - Oppenheimer & Co. Mark Biffert - Oppenheimer & Co.: Doug, added to that, how much of the yield expectation of maintaining what you had previously expected is attributed to cost savings that you may have renegotiated on Russia Wharf?

We probably got cost savings. Unfortunately, we bought the curtain wall and we bought the steel for the building and the foundations for the building prior to the economic collapse in the construction industry, so we weren't really able to sort of re-bid that and maintain our schedule for Wellington. So I would say on average we probably got somewhere between 5% and 7% on the other trades. It probably totaled somewhere between $5 and $10 million on the hard side. Mark Biffert - Oppenheimer & Co.: And then a lot of the detail you gave, I appreciate that, on the leasing in New York, it seems like a lot of the square footage is more to the smaller size. Is that your expectation over the next year or two, that most of the leases you're going to sign are going to be under 150,000, 100,000 square feet?

If you're talking about quantity of leases, I'd say the answer would be yes. If you're talking about total square footage, I hope the answer is no. The spaces that we've received proposals on at 399 are between 100,000 square feet and 60,000 square feet and there are three or four of those. And the other firms that we're talking to about the floor at 7 Times Square Tower, the floor at Citigroup Center, those are all full-floor users, they're looking for expansion as well, so those are generally in the 30,000 square feet range. But if you said in terms of the number of transactions that you're going to do, I expect that we will do twice as many or three times as many small transactions at 540 Madison, at 599 Lexington, a 2 Grand Central than we will total transactions in the other buildings. Mark Biffert - Oppenheimer & Co.: And then, Mike, a quick question on the convertible debt that you have. Are you guys looking at all at the equity markets or have thoughts at all about issuing equity given what a lot of your peers have been doing and using that to fund maybe some convertible debt that may be trading at discounts or for other purposes?

I'll just repeat what I said before. We are very encouraged by what has happened in the equity markets and we're also very encouraged about what's going on in the convertible markets as well as what we hear is going on in the unsecured debt markets. We look pretty often at liability management and ways to either reduce our total overall leverage and/or extend out our maturities and there are lots of ways we think about to do that.

Your next question comes from Jordan Sadler - KeyBanc Capital Markets.

I just wanted to follow up on that last question there. You referenced leverage, to reduce your overall leverage [inaudible]. How do you want to be positioned when the turnaround comes leverage wise? Let's say you're 7 and change times debt-to-EBITDA today. Where would you want to be?

I wish I could give you a relative number, Jordan. I just can't, because a lot of what's going on today I think is in response to the availability of debt, not just the levels of debt. And if people felt, for example, that anybody who had unsecured debt could readily and quickly replace that unsecured debt at a reasonable level, I think that might affect people's views on total amount of unsecured leverage that people would have and be comfortable carrying. And so I think it's going to depend a lot on the comfort level and the openness and the availability of different sources of capital. But clearly to do things and to take advantage and to put ourselves in a position to be acquisitive from an opportunistic perspective as we get more comfortable with the recovery and the opportunities that we believe that will in fact show up at some point based upon the gross over financing that has occurred in the real estate markets over the last three or four years, we're going to need to have additional equity capital in the company. I can't give you a number, though.

And the other question I had was you helpfully walked through where you were quoting rents in many of your markets versus where they were in a prior cycle and I was curious. For example, I think you said in New York City rents in your buildings are in the 50s to the 80s. Number one, are those gross asking rents that you were giving us today? And what kind of move is it overall that you've seen in terms of where market was maybe at year end?

Sure. Those were gross rents and, as Mike described, the interesting thing about many of those deals is that, depending upon the space, the space may be on an as is basis so the transaction costs are going to be in certain cases much less than you would otherwise think. But just to sort of give you a perspective, we signed a lease in the high rise at Citigroup Center at $140 a square foot in November of 2008 and I don't think we would be able to get $90 a square foot today. That doesn't mean we won't get $80 or $85 a square foot, but I think rents with a starting rate with a 9 in front of them would be a real challenge and probably not achievable.

Do you think the numbers, those rent levels, the asking rent levels you quoted, has the rate of decline started to subside?

If you're asking have we hit a plateau, I think we've absolutely hit a plateau. Whether or not there's going to be an additional falloff, I wish I was smart enough to know the answer to that. I don't have a clear-cut response. I will say the following, which is that I think there is enough available space in the marketplace today that those tenants that are actively in the market are looking at the world and basically saying, you know, it may get a little bit worse, but the opportunities that we have now are significant and we can get into the best buildings or potentially get into the best buildings at rents that we never thought were achievable. We might as well move on with our lives and take this particular decision off the table as opposed to a perspective that, well, if we wait six months later, rents are going to be 20% less than they are today. I don't think that's happening any longer.

Your next question comes from Alexander Goldfarb - UBS Securities LLC.

Just going back to the 250 West 55th, is there any potential for some further costs relating to Gibson Dunn?

The only costs that are related to Gibson Dunn would be the costs that are included in the costs that we are writing off this quarter.

Okay, so in the costs, in the $0.19, there's some sort of settlement or something that says that that's it, there's no more expense related to them?

Yes, correct.

And then next, over at Times Square Tower, Ann Taylor, any sense they might give back any space or do they seem pretty fine with where they are? They seem to be closing a fair number of stores.

Mike actually spent some time looking at them from a risk perspective this quarter, so I'll let him comment on their balance sheet. But they're paying somewhere in the neighborhood of $45 or $46 a square foot for that space and, while they may be not utilizing all of it, we have not been made aware of any subletting that they're doing.

As Doug mentioned, it's certainly possible and likely that they've got headcount reductions in much of their staff because their revenues are clearly being hit pretty dramatically, like all of the major retail companies. But they have a pretty strong balance sheet with very, very little debt on them, so we've always been very comfortable with the way they operated their business. So we don't feel overly concerned at this point that there's going to be a credit problem there or there would be a need for us to negotiate with them were they to come to us and ask us for anything. At this point they have not come to us and asked us for anything.

And then one of your peers out there, the employees relinquished some of their comp and the company took a charge. Any consideration that any of your management team may contemplate something similar?

It's not a conversation that we're prepared to have.

Your next question comes from John Guinee - Stifel Nicolaus & Company, Inc. John Guinee - Stifel Nicolaus & Company, Inc.: Doug, I thought you had an interesting comment on 250 West 55th Street, which is the incremental cost above your basis when you decide to start the development again. Based on today's dollars - kind of forgetting land because trying to pick a land value is very difficult - what do you think the hard and the soft costs are to build in Manhattan?

Robert, you can probably answer that question more readily than I can.

Well, there are various discussions going on with the building trades and of course we've seen a strong fall off in the contractors' profit margins. Construction costs had been in the $400 a foot range and they're clearly coming down, but I wouldn't want to speculate what they will be in a couple of years.

Your next question comes from David Harris - Arroyo Capital.

I've read a couple of articles over the last few months which have suggested that the health of some of the major law firms, particularly those tied to financial services, is being stressed in a way that's not really been before. We're seeing layoffs of junior staff and even up to partner. Could you comment - I know these businesses can be difficult to underwrite from a credit perspective; clearly you've got some exposure here - can you just sort of talk generally to that?

We've talked to many, many of our law firms over the last three to six months just to kind of investigate and understand better about what is going on in the industry. And clearly the second half of 2008 was a very, very challenging time from a revenue generation perspective for law firms. I think what's most interesting is these law firms are doing the right thing by cutting back in their staff, cutting their non-productive partners and taking an opportunity that they've really not taken before to drop their expense bases pretty significantly by 10%, 15% as they drop a number of their people in reaction to this. The discussions that we have had with our specific firms have not seen drastic drops in revenue. In fact, many of our larger firms showed revenue growth, believe it or not, in 2008.

I think there may be quite a considerable lag in that business.

I think there is a little bit of a lag, but the other thing that we're seeing is that there was a period of time in the fourth quarter after everything hit where there was no work to be done and now that the other side of the work has started to pick up, the workout business, the restructuring, the bankruptcy business and the litigation business of those firms. So as we look at our portfolio and we look at 85% of our law firm revenue that is in the Top 100 law firms and we see the diversity of practice group that is in our law firms, we get some comfort from the fact that they're starting to generate more revenue on one side of the house and maybe less revenue on the other side of the house. These firms don't have really any material debt typically; they simply have to take potentially home less at the end of the day. But they will survive.

Can you remind me what percentage of your rentals are derived from legal firms?

It's about 25%.

Can I just go back, Doug and Mort, if you're still there as well, to some comments that you made, Doug, in your opening remarks about Washington, D.C. Combining that with thoughts of maybe we're in a period where the federal government expands for a considerable period of time and plays a bigger role in the affairs of the country, is it your ambition over the longer period in time to build up D.C. relative to your New York exposure?

I don't think there is any - we have never had as a company an allocation to our various markets. Our perspective has always been if there are opportunities to grow in a particular market we should make sure we have the resources to avail ourselves of those. And the reason that we're not in 20 markets or 15 markets or even 10 markets is that we think that potentially the opportunities to grow in our markets are enough to satisfy the growth of the company at all. And so I don't think that is a zero sum game, David. If we are able to find opportunities to grow in Washington, D.C., I don't think it would be necessarily to the detriment from a portfolio perspective of our other assets or our other markets. We would just figure out a way to find the capital and the resources to make those types of investments in Washington, D.C.

Yes, I'll just add to that. I do think that Doug captured it. We are really not sort of in the allocation business in that sense. I think we feel in all the principal markets that we are in there is some serious degree of constraints on new supply and, when we go forward when the markets turn around, we don't think they're all going to turn around at the same pace or with the same energy. We'll just have to pay attention to that and the opportunities that might exist in the individual markets. For example, whatever else you may say about Washington, it's still very, very difficult to find sites in the best locations and we will continue to work to acquire sites because we do think over time the Washington market is going to develop, as it always has, not only a level of growth but it will maintain if not increase its level of stability. We also do think that there will be, as I say, I think we will see a more rapid comeback and a more accelerated comeback in a city like New York. So these are things that we don't predict, but we just watch carefully. We have a feel for each one of these markets and we'll respond to them as much as anything else, as implicit in what Doug said, on an opportunistic basis rather than on a kind of formal plan.

Can I just finally say this? I lived and worked in London for 15 years. I've now lived and worked in New York for 15 years. I wouldn't dismiss London's competitive position quite as forcefully as you did.

No, I don't dismiss it. I'm just saying I think they've suffered greater damage financially than New York's financial world and I think they're going to have a slower time coming back. Frankly, I think the confidence in the world of global finance will be rebuilt more quickly in New York than it will in any other place and that's why I think there will be a more rapid return and a relatively improved market share in New York than a lot of people expect.

Your next question comes from Jacob Strumwasser - [Grumman].

Can you guys please clarify your comments on the dividend?

What we said was that if nothing unanticipated occurs that we expect that our dividend will be in and around the $0.50 per share range starting next quarter and that that is a level that we believe will be continued for a period of time based upon our views on taxable income, which are between $2 and $2.20 for the next few years.

Okay, so I just want to confirm that that is a decrease in the dividend, correct?

Our current dividend is $0.68 per share.

What cap rate are you seeing in the marketplace right now?

For what?

For buildings in your strike zone.

To be honest with you, we're not. One of the challenges that we have is that there are effectively no trades that are occurring. There is talk of trades, but there don't seem to be any actual trade. And the deals that have occurred have been based on distressed situations and those situations have, I believe, from a cap rate perspective been significant lower than I think what the market would anticipate, but I think that the valuations of those assets have been significantly lower than what you would consider replacement costs or sort of fair price. As an example, 1540 Broadway, I think, sold for a sub-6 cap rate but it was $340 a square foot. So unfortunately I don't think we are able at the moment to sort of give you comfort that we know where, from a private market perspective, cap rates are.

Can you give me a guess?

I could, but I won't.

It sounded like earlier we were also pontificating a little bit about the state of the world and where it was going, so I wonder if you would entertain me a bit and kind of talk about if interest rates become much higher in the future, how is that going to affect the cost of funding for your company and what are you doing to kind of - it sounds like you guys are big thinkers and think years kind of down the road so what are you doing to lock in some sort of cost-saving mechanism in front of what could be much higher interest rates down the road?

Well, I'm going to answer your question in two different ways, okay? I'm going to answer the question in the real estate way first, which is if in fact there is - I think what you're describing is probably inflation - if there is significant inflation then real estate has always been a beneficiary of that because the cost of new construction, assuming there is incremental demand, is significantly higher and the ability for companies like ourselves, assuming there is incremental demand, to see significant increases in rental rates will dramatically outstrip that inflation and our assets will be worth a lot more. Okay? That's sort of number one. Number two is what we try and do from a financing perspective is basically borrow as long as we possibly can all the time and in markets like today's where market rent, interest rates are - I don't know if they're considered high or low; they're certainly higher than they were, but they don't have embedded in them significant inflation - we are a user of the current market conditions. So as Mike described, we're doing a loan for $225 million at 7.5%. We last quarter announced that we did a $375 million loan at 6.1%. So that's $600 million of long-term capital. The first loan was, I think, eight years and this is a seven-year loan. We enter into hedges for our floating rate loans when we think it's an appropriate time and we basically don't sort of play an interest rate game. We take advantage of opportunities to increase our duration and lock in interest rates when we think interest rates are "fair."

Your next question comes from Michael Knott - Green Street Advisors.

I'll ask the leverage question a slightly different way. Apparently on the Chemco call today Milton Cooper, the right leverage level for his company down the road would be 75% equity. What's the probability that the right answer for Boston Properties is anywhere in that zone?

You know, I don't see how anybody can give you that kind of prediction. We have a very difficult kind of business than he does. We are in a situation where the vast bulk of our leases are with high quality credits in high quality buildings where the average lease is, I don't know, seven, eight, sometimes nine years depending on the individual markets. And as we have said over and over again, we're in supply constrained markets and we do feel that we can afford and support certainly a higher leverage than might be possible in other markets. But there's so many different issues that sort of crowd in upon that conclusion, it's very difficult to make these kinds of long-term judgments. I really think we're just going to have to do what we've done before, which is just to pay attention to all the markets that we are in, particularly the financial markets, which covers all of our markets, and make what we hope are conservative judgments. I would say that by and large, as you may have noted, we have for years - maybe since the time our company went public - we have been in probably the most conservative position in terms of our degree of leverage of any of the companies in our peer group and I suppose we're probably going to stay that way.

And then if we have a period of time in the next two or three years where there are abundant acquisition opportunities, I guess, A) I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on that, and then B) do you feel like you could be able to pounce on those after the GM deal last summer?

Yes. Listen, I think, as you probably noted, we have partners on the GM deal. There are a number of people who have spoken to us who would like to be our partners in any sort of opportunistic environments that become available, that is, if there were specific situations where we felt we could make acquisitions of properties, we would look at it very carefully and frankly, if it required more equity money than we felt comfortable shelling out, although we would be investors ourselves, we would do it with these partners. And there are partners and we have spoken to very serious partners who are looking to joint venture with us on acquisitions. I'm not saying that we're going to do that; I'm just saying that we are quite naturally planning for that possibility because we want to make sure that we're going to be in a position to move quickly.

Your last question comes from Michael Bilerman - Citigroup.

Doug, you talked a little bit about the dividend reduction providing an extra $100 million of capital. You also talked about the convert market as being one avenue. I guess the dividend reduction gives you a little bit more pricing power on that end. Was that tied at all?

It was not tied at all to that, Michael. I mean, obviously, we're not naïve to not understand that there's a correlation between your dividend rate and what you might pay as a coupon for the convertible, but we didn't do one in anticipation of doing another.

And then just thinking about sizing, I think you clearly talked about just going down to what your minimum payout is or trying to get down to that sort of level. You already had about $80 to $100 million of free cash flow. How do you think about that extra $100 million relative to your capital needs versus maintaining a dividend given the fact that you have below average leverage, a decent capital structure, sort of having to weigh all these things together or even potentially just paying it in stock? I'm just curious how your thought process went.

I think the thought process was pretty straightforward, which is, as I said in my comments, we're not naïve to the recognition and realization that over time, given sort of the current state of affairs, we're much better off having more equity in the company than less equity in the company because this gives us the flexibility both to deal with our existing liability management side in terms of being able to repay and replenish the facilities that we currently have as well as hopefully putting us in a position at some point - it's not today - to take advantage of other opportunities. And so we felt like this was the right thing to do for the company at this time. We continue to talk about our overall amount of debt, our overall leverage, our overall equity, ways that we can potentially increase the amount of equity in the company, other alternatives to pushing out and extending our maturities on our existing liabilities, whether or not those liabilities are the appropriate ones for the company in terms of their form, being secured, unsecured, convertibles, etc., and it's very much a fluid situation and, as the facts change, our opinion may change. That's sort of where we are right now.

You talked a little bit about the Hancock transaction and some of the rationale of why not looking at a headline number as indicative of where things are. Clearly, 1330 went a similar fashion. Can you put at least a little bit of ball post around as a third-party buyer and not the mezz lender effectively coming in how those deals were effectively priced? Because I do think that there's a fair amount of confusion in the market and clearly a lot of headlines that the values were a lot less than effectively what it would have been in a true sale.

As I said, I think when you think about the Hancock Tower you have to think about what they probably have invested in the building. And I'm not going to posture a number; I can just tell you that my assumption is that they certainly didn't purchase the debt that was more senior to them for a number that was - and this is, like I said, a guess - much less than par and I don't know what that amount was. And they had their own investment in the asset and they paid a transfer tax and I have no idea whether or not they chose, in terms of aggregating the debt above them so that they could, if they wanted to, have a credit bid in $850 million, you know, what they paid for at those various tranches, but it's certainly significantly more than $660 million. And the asset is going to need additional capital, potentially on the base building side but certainly on the tenant improvement side. And then I don't know what a fund like Normandy or Five Mile, which were the two that I believe are the owners of that asset now, are looking for from a return on equity perspective, but my expectation is there's not a lot of free cash flow from the asset today, so you may have to sort of accrue all that in. And that's sort of where you have to come out in terms of where effectively they sort of saw the valuation over a relatively short period of time. I think that, again, because it's a situation that was distressed, thinking about it on a dollars per square foot basis or on a yield basis is hard because our understanding is that when the asset was originally purchased it was, I don't know, a 3.5 capper or something in that ballpark and I would wager to believe that the capitalization rate based upon what they have in the thing is certainly a number today that would not be, quote-unquote, deemed as market, you know, if an asset were being sold on a sort of arms-length transaction to a willing buyer from a willing seller on a fully marketed basis. So you have all those sort of conflicting issues associated with these tricky situations which make it very difficult to sort of peg valuations.

You talked a little bit about debt maturities where you said, I think, two of them - and which I guess are the two assets in the fund, 125 West 55th and Two Grand Central - that will probably need some equity when those loans mature. I'm just curious how your discussions are going with your fund partners to provide that equity.

You know, we have business plan meetings and they knew when we purchased the assets that there was likely going to be a requirement to paydown the capital stack on those two assets and there's really been no additional discussion other than sort of what the amounts are going to be and what the timing might be.

And then just on 17 Cambridge, those development rights, what's the timing in that transaction?

Well, the transaction has occurred. Just to give you a little bit of background, 17 Cambridge Center is the last available development site in our Cambridge Center property, that combination of assets. When Biogen decided that they were going to move their headquarters out to the building that we're developing for them out in Weston, it was clear that they no longer were going to use those development rights, which we had transferred to them way long ago, and so we effectively purchased them back. It's a right, so we didn't actually buy the land yet; we buy the land from the Cambridge Redevelopment Authority. And my expectation is we'll probably close on the transaction some time in 2010, but it could be a little bit sooner than that.

And there appear to be no further questions in our queue. I'll now turn the conference back over to our speakers for any additional or closing comments.

That's all we have. Thanks for your participation and, again, I realize this was a long day with a lot of calls and we'll let you get on to whatever the next one is. Thanks a lot.

That does conclude today's conference. Thank you for your participation. You may now disconnect.