Good day, everyone. Thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Macerich Company Third Quarter 2013 Earnings Call. As a reminder, today’s call is being recorded. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. Following the presentation, we will conduct a question-and-answer session. Instructions will be provided at that time for you to queue up for questions. Again, this call is being recorded and I would now like to turn the conference over to Ms. Jean Wood, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead Ma’am.

Thank you, everyone for joining us on our third quarter 2013 earnings call. During the course of this call, management will be making forward-looking statements, which are subject to uncertainties and risk associated with our business and industry. For a more detailed description of these risks, please refer to the Company’s press release and SEC filings. As this call will be webcast for some time to come, we believe it is important to note that the passage of time can render information stale, and you should not rely on the continued accuracy of this material. During this call, we will discuss certain non-GAAP financial measures as defined by the SEC’s Regulation G. The reconciliation of each non-GAAP financial measure to the most directly comparable GAAP financial measure is included in the press release and the supplemental 8-K filings for the quarter, which are posted in the Investors section of the Company’s website at www.macerich.com. Joining us today are Art Coppola, CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors; Tom O’Hern, Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; Bobby Perlmutter, Executive Vice President, Leasing; and John Perry, Senior Vice President, Investor Relations. With that, I would like to turn the call over to Tom. Thomas E. O’Hern: Thank you, Jean. Today, we will be keeping our introductory comments brief to allow plenty of time for Q&A. That being said, we will be limiting this call to one hour. If run out of time and you are still in need of questions being answered, please do not hesitate to reach out for me, Art, John Perry or Jean Wood. It was another great quarter. We continued to execute on our plan to dispose of non-core assets. We continue to strengthen our balance sheet and we had a very strong operating performance…

Thank you, Tom and welcome to our call. I would like to touch upon a few topics that have been very much talked about in the last couple of months with regard to regional mall landlords, and that relates to releasing spreads and moderating sales increases from tenants and its impact on same-center NOI. I also want to discuss a little bit the portfolio management activities that we have had including recently announced dispositions, our balance sheet and then finally our development pipeline and then open it up to questions. It’s clear that tenant sales have moderated over the past year, but releasing spreads today remain extremely strong. Tenants in our malls are making a lot of money. They are doing great sales productivity and there is extremely high demand. Laws of supply and demand work heavily in our favor, and if you look at the portfolio that we own, virtually all of the malls that we own are – at least 85% of the malls that we own are must-have malls. So, when it comes time for a tenant to renew, it’s not a matter of how much rent we’re going to get, it’s really a matter of just coming to the proper number and then moving forward. Many times we find tenants in centers like Queens Center where they are paying us already 40% some of sales and we tell them look it’s probably time for you to move on, if you don’t, your rents are going to have to go up to a certain number. They elect to stay, because when you are in must have trophy centers like Queen’s, Tysons, Santa Monica and many others that we own. The tenants cannot afford to lose these spaces as part of their brand. Anecdotally if you look back…

Thank you, sir. (Operator Instructions) And we will take our first question from Craig Schmidt with Bank of America.

Hi Craig. Craig Schmidt – Bank of America Merrill Lynch: Hi how are you? Art I was wondering if you could spend a little time and talk about how the redevelopment efforts at Kings Plaza and Green Acres are going to differ?

Sure the initial development efforts at Green Acres currently we’re primarily looking at building a series of tower center type tenants as well as entertainment type tenants on the 20 acres of land that we bought next door to Green Acres. We’re also doing a tremendous amount of leasing at Green Acres which maybe Bobby you may want to touch upon. And long-term obviously we’ll be looking at the future of our department stores that are there, one of which would love to expand but obviously they need to get their act together before they can think of such a thing. So right now tremendous amount of releasing is beginning to happen inside the mall at Green Acres and then we’re looking at adding new retail space which we’re getting tremendous rents from a lot of the bigger box type users on the 20 acres of land that we bought there. At Kings Bob would you like to comment on kind of what the merchandising plan is in focuses on Kings Plaza?

Sure Craig this is Bob Perlmutter. I would describe Kings as having two opportunities. The first one sits within the existing small store set. We believe we have the opportunity over the next couple of years to really make Kings much closer to Queens, in terms of physical improvements, in terms of merchandise mix, in terms of the way it’s operated and marketed and ultimately in terms of sales. And as we’ve discussed, if we can get the sales at Kings to a closer level to Queens, there will be significant rent growth over the coming years. The longer term piece is the potential redevelopment of the Sears box which affords us approximately 300,000 feet of space that we believe over a longer period of time it maybe carved up into both specialty stores and restaurants as well as some box tenants. So there is opportunity within the existing mall stores and then there is the potential to redevelop one in the existing anchors. Craig Schmidt – Bank of America Merrill Lynch: Great. And then just on Paradise Valley, I noticed that you’ve taken away the projected cost. Are you thinking of enlarging that redevelopment or scaling it down?

Scaling it down. There’s uncertainty in terms of getting approvals from certain anchored apartment stores that have put a little bit more into a reconsideration category, which was a new development. So scaling it back. Craig Schmidt – Bank of America Merrill Lynch: Thank you.

Next we will go to Michael Bilerman with Citi. Michael Bilerman – Citigroup Inc.: Good morning. Tom, in your opening remarks you talked about temp to perm about 250,000 square feet over the last four quarters and currently about 560 basis points of temporary that I guess you would seek to eventually move over to permanent category that uplift of $20 to $25 of rent. So I’m just curious what’s the basis that you’re using in terms of square footage? I think it’s probably about 1 million square feet is that, but I wasn’t sure in terms of that 560 basis points. How much of that do you think you’re going to be able to convert the time to convert it and the capital that you need to put in to get the rents that you’re looking for? Thomas E. O’Hern: Mike, I’ll take the first part of that and then I’ll defer it to Bobby. This is his team, is the team that’s really got to do it. The 5.6% is roughly 1.3 million square feet in total. The capital, it’s typically not a very capital intensive effort, at least to-date it has not been. So, the capital really isn’t a significant part of the equation. Bobby, you want to comment on timing?

Yes In terms of timing, I think we see a long-term stabilized temporary occupancy of 3% to 4%. One of the things to remember is, when we are able to convert the temporary to permanent, it’s not that we necessarily exit the temporary tenant out of the mall. We typically will maintain the temp in a lesser location. So, part of what’s occurring is the temp is being converted to permanent. A full rent is being achieved, yet the permanent – the temporary tenant is often relocated to another part of the center. So, we’ll always have some degree of temporary tenants within the centers. Michael Bilerman – Citigroup Inc.: So, I guess you are looking at total occupancy moving up in addition to the conversion. So, you sort of get a dual benefit from that?

Right. And I think roughly, we have over the last year about a 200 basis point increase in permanent occupancy. Michael Bilerman – Citigroup Inc.: Okay. And then just on the disposition, I just want to make sure I get the change in sort of what you’re doing. Including the two assets to Rausch, you’ll have disposed of about $920 million gross of assets, is about $300 million of debt on those assets, so generating net equity of $622 million. Originally, guidance was $500 million to $1 billion, about a third debt, so $650 million of proceeds, so sort of right smack in the middle from an equity perspective. So I am just curious how much of it was timing in terms of I guess now you are seeing $0.18 of dilution for the year and I guess how should we think about an annualized dilution impact from the sales activity. How much was timing, how much was price just sort of what were the ins and outs relative to your original thought process on the sales? Thomas E. O’Hern: Michael one point of clarification on the $0.18, $0.05 of that dilution came from the equity issuance in May that was not part of our initial guidance. So $0.13 related to the dispositions that have happened year-to-date, obviously if anything happens between now and year end is going to have a pretty short period of time in 2013, so we wouldn’t expect much impact there one way or another.

As far as the timing of when that transaction materialized it was just the ordinary course of business. Look we are committed on an ongoing basis to pruning our portfolio and reinvesting proceeds from certain assets into our redevelopment pipeline and our top tier assets. That’s going to be ongoing. In August when we had our last call we had nothing in the works there was nothing under contract. So this really developed after August, it is what it is. Michael Bilerman – Citigroup Inc.: Right, thank you.

Thanks.

(Operator Instructions) We will go next to Rich Moore with RBC Capital Markets. Richard Moore – RBC Capital Markets: Hi good morning guys. While we are on the disposition topic, do you have anything else I guess currently in the hopper as we look at 2014, I mean I realize you’ll be opportunistic as these come along but is there anything you’re sort of actively pushing or engaging at this point?

Our policy on acquisitions and dispositions is generally not to comment on individual transactions. But I’ll repeat that we’re committed on a long-term basis to recycling our capital and to constantly through portfolio management, which – that’s kind of the word I used for instead of dispositions today was portfolio management, through portfolio management to recycle out of certain what we consider to be non-core assets into our core assets to go for more assets to fewer bigger assets. Look, I’ll go back to the assets that we’re selling. We didn’t dislike any of them. We liked them all, but it made sense for us to prudently recycle our capital and this market is allowing, the transaction market is allowing that activity to take place. So, I’m sure that in our next call if there’s anything, you’re going to be in the works that would affect our 2014 guidance. We’ll do what we did for you in the January guidance call of this year. But at this point in time what’s under contract is that’s been disclosed is it, but long-term, we’re committed to culling our portfolio. Richard Moore – RBC Capital Markets: In the appetite by buyers, is that changing in anyway? Would you say is it getting better or possibly worse I guess?

I think that there are more buyers out there today than there were at the beginning of the year and I think the appetite of the specific buyer is higher today than it was at the beginning of the year. Richard Moore – RBC Capital Markets: Okay good thank you and then Tom, on the recovery ratio, it’s staying – the expense recovery ratio, it’s staying what seems to be unusually high but it stayed that way now for a couple of quarters. So I am just curious, is this unusual and we’re going to head kind of back down a bit or should we keep the ratio up here? Thomas E. O’Hern: No. I think this is what you’re going to see, Rich. I mean keep in mind that we have CPI increases built in not just for our minimum rents but also for fixed CAM charges. And oftentimes we have a better escalator on the CAM recoveries than we do on our minimum rents. In many cases it’s 2 times CPI. So that’s what helps charge the recovery rate and should help drive the gross margin as well. Richard Moore – RBC Capital Markets: Okay good. Thank you, guys.

Thanks Rich. Thomas E. O’Hern: Thanks.

And next we will go to Luke McCarthy with Deutsche Bank. Luke McCarthy – Deutsche Bank: Hey guys just I guess quickly on getting it out of the way. If you could just comment on JCPenney and kind of what you guys are hearing from them post back-to-school season as we head into holiday sales?

Look they seem to be generating more traffic. We have exits or intercept interviews with their store managers which thankfully I think is a better source of information than you might get corporately. And the store managers are pleased with the new management team and they are optimistic about the future, beyond that I am the last person in the world that could prognosticate the future there other than, we are long term supporters of JCPenney as a brand and long term I think JCPenney is here to stay. Luke McCarthy – Deutsche Bank: Sure, okay and then just one follow-up on redevelopment. There were some articles out there earlier in the year about you guys particularly responding well to your demographics I mean in California, in Phoenix with very culturally specific favorable attractions at the sites. Moving forward as you continue to focus on that effort, does that change from a cost perspective how you underwrite the deals or think about redevelopment moving forward?

No, but it’s an interesting question. Look the lessons that we’ve learned in terms of focusing on our Vanguardia [ph] program. Is that you need to be in touch with your market whatever that market maybe. And that’s the thing that drove us three years ago to come up with the crazy idea of tearing down Broadway Plaza at Walnut Creek. Walnut Creek is not a spare, but the lessons that we learned of being in touch with your community. Being in touch with your demographic and realizing what your demographic ones it’s transferable across the board to all income groups and all ethnic groups. And Broadway Plaza as we looked at it we said look its great the anchors are great. But there is so much demand for specialty space and the shoppers want so much more we are just not giving it to them basically we can’t give it to them unless we tear down roughly 60% of the center and 70% of the parking deck and rebuild the whole thing. And it was insane frankly in some peoples minds for us to think about it but as we look at it today. I think it’s the best redevelopment opportunity to invest that kind of money to create a center that’s going to be worth, could be worth $1 billion. It’s an incredible opportunity and it’s only as a result of really just paying attention to your trade area and not being satisfied with something that’s good but we’re even great but always wanting it to be at its highest investor utilization. That’s what drove us to do what we are doing at Walnut Creek that’s what drove us to do the densification at Tysons Corner. It was paying attention to the metro rail coming. Again, that was not a cultural thing, but paying attention to your trader and always striving to take your real estate to the highest investors. Luke McCarthy – Deutsche Bank: Okay, great, thanks guys.

Thanks Luke.

And next we’ll go to Daniel Busch with Green Street Advisors. Daniel Busch – Green Street Advisors: When I look at the different mall groupings in the supplemental package, it looks like there’s quite a sizable gap between occupancy in the top 40 malls versus the ones outside the top 40, and I know Art, you mentioned that the retailer demand for space is quite strong. Is that demand, is it tend to drive pretty quickly, when you get outside of your top 40 malls? I guess, I’m just trying to get a better sense of what the demand for space is at those lower productivity centers?

I’ll let Bob answer that, but our actual numbers year-to-date are that, we’ve had pretty decent results in that group of 41 to 57. Bob, do you want to talk about it?

Yeah, I mean, I think the first point is, we have been able to generate positive leasing spreads, even in the lowest tier group. I think that the two differences are primarily the nature of your tenant changes a little bit, much of it is more local or regionalized tenant as opposed to a national tenant. We find that we’re successful in maintaining tenants at renewals, but again, the nature of the tenancy is a little bit different and probably our biggest opportunities are less on leasing spreads and more on improving long-term occupancy. Daniel Busch – Green Street Advisors: Okay. Just one other question, just looking at the portfolio makeup, I know, obviously you’ve been pretty active disposing of the assets, I guess, on the lower tier of the portfolio, but I know you’ve mentioned in the past that you want to focus on those markets where you have exposure or a great presence in and there are a couple of assets I guess where – I am thinking of you have one less than Texas that’s above – in the top 40. Are those malls where you don’t really have a presence in the market? Are those potential assets that you may look to dispose over the long-term?

No, not that one in particular; look it’s a national business and maybe I’ve been a little too restraining when I said, look we want to focus on six or seven major markets. That’s not to the exclusion of everything else. So we’re not going to focus on only six or seven gateway cities. If a center is a must have center and we still see great upside in it, which the one in Bobby we do. Then it fits our profile. Daniel Busch – Green Street Advisors: Okay, great. Thank you.

We picked up that something down the road, possibly. Daniel Busch – Green Street Advisors: Okay, thanks.

Thanks.

Next we’ll go to Haendel St. Juste with Morgan Stanley.

Hello. Haendel St. Juste – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Hey, a couple of quick questions for you. If I heard you right early on the call you said there is a 20% mark-to-market on your top 40 malls, even if sales stay flat. So I guess two questions, did I hear that right? And then could you provide the comparable number for your bottom tier malls?

Yeah, you heard it right. That said, I did say that as I look at it that if you were – I’m asked constantly what’s your mark-to-market and I took a look at the top 40 centers we have, which generates 85% of our NOI. It’s not hard for me to see at least 20% mark-to-market there and that’s without pushing the envelope at all. That’s really very easy to see. The opportunity I think as we move below those centers, which are number 41 through 57, which are roughly 12% to 15% of our NOI. The real opportunity there, I think is more occupancy gain than it is rent spread, and there is opportunities to do that. So but look, what drives this ship here is the top 40 centers and those are the flagships that we own and where really we see the huge upside in. But I’d say occupancy in the lower tier and rent uplift in the upper tier. Haendel St. Juste – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Okay, thank you for that. One more or I guess maybe one and half more. Just wanted to clarify the two malls sold week or so back, it sounds like they were not part of the broader disposition package contemplated earlier this year. Is that right?

Which two are we talking about? Haendel St. Juste – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: That would Chesterfield and Salisbury?

They were part of a group of properties that we had a broker exposing to the market earlier this year, they were… Haendel St. Juste – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: I guess…

That by the way is not that relevant, because again I’ll remind you that the fact that we gave a certain number of assets to the broker earlier this year to the intermediary. I had no estimation or contemplation that all 14 of those assets would be sold. We didn’t want to speak for the buyers. We said look, these are some assets that fit the profile that we’ve owned them a long time. We have a low basis in them. We’re able to do a reverse 1031 tax exchange to increase the basis in these assets to make it possible for us to think about selling them, and that’s what we did. We didn’t pull the market as to what people were interested in or what frankly we were interested in necessarily disposing it, other than the fact that they did fit the profile. They were not in our major markets. But they were part of a group of assets that were exposed earlier in the year. Haendel St. Juste – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Okay, okay. And in the fact of I guess Rouse. It’s a fairly known Rouse, I think about those assets, in fact that they emerged as the winning bidder. Is there something there perhaps a lack of a private equity bid? We’ve obviously seen them the private equity guys very active acquiring quite a few malls this year. Is there something there that perhaps turned them off, maybe Rouse is perhaps the more strategic, a better buyer given perhaps operating of strategic synergies or some other factor? Just kind of curious as to with risk of putting words in the mouth of a public peer as to Rouse emerging as the winning bidder over the private equity who you would think could and should pay a higher price.

I wouldn’t want to do that. We’re pleased to be able to transact with them. We are natural counter parties to each other and hopefully this is the first of several transactions that we can do with each other. Haendel St. Juste – Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC: Appreciate it, thanks.

Thank you. Operator And we’ll go to Alexander Goldfarb with Sandler O’Neill. Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neill & Partners L.P.: Hi, good morning Arthur.

Good morning. Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neill & Partners L.P.: First question is, Tom, if we look in the packet, the majority of the unencumbered assets are in the lower tier malls, which as you guys where in the portfolio, presumably those are malls that get sold as you guys have been discussing. Along those lines, because of the balance sheet discipline, should we think about the malls in the upper buckets, those becoming unencumbered, so that you do retain that unencumbered pool or how should we think about that? Thomas E. O’Hern: No, I think we’re clearly have moved in the direction of long-term non-recourse financing. Once we closed on FlatIron, Alexander, there will no corporate debt outstanding. We’ve only got a little bit outstanding in line and in $125 million on secured term note. We will be completely secured borrowed at that point with $1.5 billion letter of credit available to us. Then Art mentioned a little bit earlier, the maturities that we have coming due in 2014, 2015 and 2016, those are all for most part high quality assets that are unencumbered, I mean relatively lightly encumbered. And so we’ll be able to put some additional financing on those above and beyond what’s maturing. So we’re in good shape and I would not expect to see us unencumbering a lot of assets in the top 30 or 40. Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neill & Partners L.P.: Okay. So previously where you guys had talked about your unencumbered asset pool that was more of a temporary nature, not something philosophical that the Company was seeking to maintain them? Thomas E. O’Hern: That’s correct. I mean if you think about the period of time we’ve been in the last three years or so, we’ve been in a generation low…

Without completely forecasting what we were doing, we also knew that the assets that were unencumbered were assets that potentially would be disposition candidates in the future. And we knew that certainly the private equity buyers are much more attracted to being able to put their own debt on these assets when they buy them, so that it makes them more saleable. As of today, I think we also brought that up really just to point out our capacity, our firepower. It wasn’t intended to be a signal that we were headed towards becoming a rated Company. We certainly have a balance sheet today directionally, but if we wanted to go that route over the next period of time, it could be done, but I’m not convinced it’s necessarily the right thing. To me the most important fact about our balance sheet today is that we have virtually nothing outstanding on $2 billion line of credit and we closed the upcoming FlatIron financing. We’ve got substantial cash on the balance sheet. So we got a tremendous amount of capacity sitting here. Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neill & Partners L.P.: Okay. And then on Superstition, you guys bought out the rest of your stake there, there is about $350 a foot. What are your thoughts for that? I mean obviously you guys bought in the rest of the stakes, so what are your thoughts for that mall?

It was just a transaction that was negotiated with our partner JCPenney and at this point in time, we like the asset. It’s part of the group of assets there that we own. And we have actually had increases on the occupancy there, nothing in particular there shouldn’t be any great signals. It was done with a partner. If I had to really look at it and dissect what we did, it’s not the type of property that we would buy, if we own nothing of it, but we already owned two-thirds of it buying the other one-third. When you’re investing $20 million of equity to do it was not exactly a big stretch for our capital. And as I think about it from a portfolio management viewpoint, it gives us the ability to maybe take some of our C Malls and dispose of them without having a significant dilution from those activities. So it’s a little bit of a portfolio management decision. There shouldn’t be any big signal there, other than we’re not buying $350 a foot centers on their own today. But going from 66% to 100%, it gives you complete control of the asset, which also gives us the ability to think about monetizing it in the future more easily, financing it in the future without having to talk to a partner. There’s not a lot to be read into it though. Alexander Goldfarb – Sandler O’Neill & Partners L.P.: Okay. I didn’t know if there was future expansion or something of that sort, but it sounds like not. Listen, thank you.

Okay. Thanks Alex.

Next we’ll go to Josh Patinkin with BMO Capital Markets. Joshua Patinkin – BMO Capital Markets: Thank you. On the temp to permanent occupancy discussion, just wondering if there’s a way to characterize the space? Is it skewed to one anchor in the malls or is it just to spread out to characterize it generally?

No, you shouldn’t just view this as end zone or department store links. The spaces are really spread throughout the centers and spread throughout the quality of centers. Sometimes it’s, because we’re trying to accumulate blocks of space to bring in a larger retailer. Sometimes it is lesser locations. As the markets been improving, we’ve been able to get permanent deals on it. Joshua Patinkin – BMO Capital Markets: Okay. So lot of times it’s your decision to hold this space right, the 50 yard line for a couple of years as you wait for better tenants?

Sometimes; sometimes it’s to fill timing that we need for these tenants. But the space is, as a general rule, you shouldn’t just view them as lesser spaces within the centers. Joshua Patinkin – BMO Capital Markets: Okay. And then kind of tying that into the specialty leasing business, I’m curious how you see that going forward? What is it as a percentage of revenue today and where was it a year ago, where do you think it could go and just your general thoughts on it? Thomas E. O’Hern: In terms of this you have specialty tenant leasing? Joshua Patinkin – BMO Capital Markets: Yes, specialty leasing. Thomas E. O’Hern: Yes, today we’re tracking an over $50 million a year. So it’s a solid contributor to NOI, in NOI growth. It’s a relatively mature category. When we first rolled this out we’ve seen double-digit increases per year, it stabilized a little bit, but obviously as we move up the quality scale adding Kings Plaza and Green Acres that’s going to help a little bit. For example, in the third quarter of last year, it was about $13 million, even this year it was about $13.9 million, so we’re still seeing growth there and I don’t see that changing. I don’t know if you do.

I would say one of the things we’ve been trying to do in the common area is really not only grow the income, but improve the quality, especially at the top tier centers. And so that’s been a big challenge of the mall teams and we’re also looking at non-traditional ways to generate revenue within the shopping centers. So I would almost describe it as a maturing and evolving business within the shopping centers. Joshua Patinkin – BMO Capital Markets: Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Operator And we’ll take our last question from Yasmine Kamaruddin with JPMorgan. Michael Mueller – JPMorgan Chase & Co.: Hey, it’s actually, Mike Mueller.

Hey, Mike. Michael Mueller – JPMorgan Chase & Co.: Hey, two questions. First of all, I think you mentioned for Broadway, there was about 15 million of NOI. How do you see that phasing out and over what time period? It’s the first one.

Well, I think that our budget, first of all that was by illustration, but that’s certainly a pretty good ballpark. We’ll diminish that by about 35% next year. So we’ll take it down to a low point of $9 or $10 and then we’ll grow it back up as we bring the space back on line. So they’ll be at least $5 million or $6 million of NOI will disappear next year. Look, it’s a major project where you’re demolishing almost half of the center. You’ve taken well over half of the parking decks out of service and rebuilding them. There are a lot of people that would say that’s crazy to do that, but the value creation opportunities are huge and our team knows how to do this, because we take old centers are reposition them, that’s our expertise, that’s our core competency. And yeah, to answer your questions, 5 million or 6 million of the NOI will go down and we do have a partner there. So we have half of that. Michael Mueller – JPMorgan Chase & Co.: Got it.

And then we’ll rebuild it to a level that could easily be in the 35 million to 40 million of NOI. I’m not sure if I actually said it, but I mean I don’t think Broadway is even in our top 20 centers in terms of NOI today. But when we get done with it, it’ll probably be in our top 10, maybe even in our top five, who knows. Michael Mueller – JPMorgan Chase & Co.: Got it, okay. And the other question was just given the success at Chicago. Does it change at all how you are looking at incremental outlet developments?

Well, it certainly gave us a lot of strength in the marketplace in leasing Fashion Outlets of Niagara’s expansion. It made us really aggressive in terms of moving forward there on that. And beyond that, look it’s a very interesting business that we see ourselves being a player in as we’ve said before. But again I’ll repeat it, we’re not going to own a lot of them, because we are going to have the same requirement for our outlet investments as we have for our full price investments, and that is that we want fewer, bigger, stronger assets. We want them to be dominant. We want them to be must have in their trade areas. Michael Mueller – JPMorgan Chase & Co.: Got it. Okay, thanks.

Thank you.

That’s all the time we have for questions today. So I’d like to turn it back over to our speakers for any additional remarks.

Again, thank you very much for joining us and we look forward to seeing you in couple of weeks at NAREIT. Thank you very much.

And that does conclude today’s call. We thank everyone again for their participation.