Good morning. My name is Christopher and I will be your conference facilitator today. I would like to welcome everyone to the ProLogis fourth quarter 2009 year-end financial results conference call. Today's call is being recorded. All lines are currently in a listen-only mode to prevent any background noise. After the speakers' presentation, there will be a question-and-answer session. (Operator Instructions) The questions will be taken in the order which they are received. Also please limit yourself to one question at a time. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Melissa Marsden, Managing Director of Investor Relations and Corporate Communications with ProLogis. Please go ahead, ma'am.

Thank you, Christopher. Good morning, everyone and welcome to our fourth quarter and year end 2009 conference call. By now you should all have received an email with a link to our supplemental as well as our business drivers, but if not, the documents are available on our website at prologis.com under Investor Relations. This morning, we will hear from Walt Rakowich, CEO, to comment on the market environment and then Bill Sullivan, CFO, will cover results and guidance. Additionally, we are joined today by Ted Antenucci, President and Chief Investment Officer, Chuck Sullivan, Head of Global Operations and Gary Anderson, Head of Global Investment Management. Before we begin prepared remarks, I would like to state that this conference call will contain forward-looking statements under federal securities laws. These statements are based on current expectations, estimates and projections about the market and the industry which ProLogis operates as well as management's beliefs and assumptions. Forward-looking statements are not guaranteed to performance and actual operating results may be affected by a variety of factors. For a list of those factors, please refer to the forward-looking statements notice in our SEC filings. I would also like to add that our fourth quarter results press release and supplemental do contain financial measures such as FFO and EBITDA that are non-GAAP measures and in accordance with Reg G, we have provided a reconciliation to those measures. And as we have done in the past, to allow a broader range of investors and analysts an opportunity to ask their questions, we will ask you to limit your questions to one at a time. Walt, would you please begin?

Sure. Thanks, Melissa. Good morning, everyone. Today, I'm going to talk about what we are currently seeing in our markets, our outlook for fundamentals throughout 2010 and how we plan to reposition our asset base in the future. Bill will have more on our financial results and guidance for 2010 in a moment. As we enter 2010, we are cautiously optimistic. On the one hand, markets are improving and the dynamics in the business point to better days ahead. On the other hand, we are acutely aware of the macro environment, tremendous capacity still left in the economy, unemployment continuing to plague us in many areas of the world and rising government debt with no near-term solution. These are problems that will not go away soon and we are continuously assessing their potential impact on our business. However, with that as a backdrop, let's talk about what we are seeing in our industry. In our third quarter conference call, we noted that our global markets were beginning to show some signs of stability. In Q4, we saw continuation of this trend. For the first time in five quarters, we saw positive net demand of just over 3 million square feet in the top 31 North American markets. In Europe, we saw a similar trend in our markets with positive net demand of 3.5 million square feet. Delivery still outpaced net demand in the U.S., resulting in a slight drop in occupancies, but that trend should reverse itself in Q1 or Q2 this year as new deliveries will slow to a trickle. In Europe, occupancies were flat from Q3 to Q4. Overall market rents are still soft, of course and they will be until occupancies rise. However, they too are stabilizing as leasing volumes pick up. It's interesting to note that…

Thanks, Walt. As I have said before, 2009 was an extremely complicated and challenging year as it relates to reporting our results. However, we expect 2010 to be substantially cleaner and we hope to simplify things for our investor audience. With that as a precursor, I would like to cover three topics today. First is, our 2009 results relative to our previous guidance with particular emphasis on Q4. Second, I will review our 2010 guidance and the underlying key assumptions. And third, I will briefly touch on our balance sheet and fund debt positioning. For the full year 2009, we generated FFO excluding significant non-cash items of $1.15 per share. Adding back $0.26 in one time or nonrecurring costs as outlined in our press release resulted in FFO excluding non-cash items and nonrecurring costs of $1.41 for the year, at the mid-point of our previous guidance of $1.39 to $1.43. Let me dive a little deeper into Q4 2009, to give a perspective on both the magnitude and type of adjustments made as well as to better outline the earnings potential for the company. In Q4 2009, we generated $0.23 per share in FFO, excluding significant non-cash items and non-recurring charges. I will talk more about those adjustments in a minute. First, let me shed some light on the nature of the $0.23 per share. That number includes roughly $0.08 in gains on disposition of real estate properties, all of which represent gains off of original gross book basis. Removing the gains will provide a core Q4 FFO of roughly $0.15 or $0.60 on an annualized basis. Before I walk through how this translates to 2010 performance, let me address the non-cash and nonrecurring charge adjustments made in Q4. As noted on page 1.4 of the supplemental, during the quarter…

Thank you, Bill. And before I open it up for Q&A, let me leave you with three short and final thoughts. First, we accomplished a lot in 2009 and most of what we set out to do is now substantially complete. Second, last year we were in a crisis mode, reacting to dire market conditions. This year we are thinking proactively about repositioning our asset base, improving our operations, growing our development business again and increasing assets under management. Our people are energized again with early evidence of improving market conditions and better days ahead. And third, we have substantial upside in our earnings over the next three to four years from simply monetizing our non-income producing assets and that will happen. But don't forget about our platform, people in 18 countries, customers with us in multiple markets and capital sources throughout the globe. It's extensive, it's deep and it is still there. And let me tell you, that platform represents a powerful engine for additional growth in the years ahead. Operator, we can open it up for Q&A.

(Operator Instructions) Your first question comes from the line of James Feldman with Bank of America. Your line is open.

Thank you. Bill, I was hoping you could talk us through what your 2010 guidance would mean in terms of AFFO and what the major drivers will be to get from one to the other?

Well, AFFO, I know people have what I view as a defined term and people look at it slightly differently. But in essence what we look at is the FFO. This is the way we think about the dividend as well as growing our operations. We add back to FFO, the cap interest, the cap G&A. We subtract out the straight line rents. We subtract out the difference or add to the difference, the differential between the distributions we get from our funds and the FFO we generate from our funds. And then we look at that as compared to CapEx, the current dividend and the preferred dividend. And from our 2010 view of that measure, we exceed our dividend and CapEx requirements. We put that cap G&A and cap interest down in our development costs, as we view that as part of our funding for our development activities.

And Jamie, along those same lines as Bill said, I mean look, if you didn't develop 700 to 800 million or that's your $336 million or whatever the number is, you wouldn't have those people. You just wouldn't. And you would have that interest expense. That's the way we think about it. The other thing I would say is candidly, if you look at $2 billion of development still -- actually it's $1.7 billion but on lease, but in addition to that we have got those building that were leased last year and we still don't have cash flow and that will be trickling in this year and into next year. And then you got $2.5 billion of land that we will monetize over time. We think there is tremendous upside in that AFFO. So candidly, while we think it's about at the dividend at this point, slightly above it, we aren't concerned about where the dividend is. And if anything hopefully over time there will be nice upside in that dividend.

Right.

Your next question comes from the line of Michael Bilerman with Citigroup. Your line is open.

Hi. Good morning. Walt, maybe you can talk about this portfolio repositioning that you've outlined in terms of selling or contributing $1.3 billion to $1.5 billion of assets and obviously, that includes some of the land that you are doing. And thinking about that predominantly, you have probably the older assets that you want to liquidate or contribute in and what you are reinvesting in and Europe and Asia probably comes at a lower yield. I would expect that those activities, putting the land aside for a second, would be considerably dilutive to earnings. And while it goes towards improving the core portfolio and I guess your geography, it may come as a considerable cost.

Michael, I'm really glad you asked that question. And actually, I probably should have put something in the prepared remarks again because I think its spot on. Interestingly enough and I'm going to ask Ted to comment alongside me with this. But what we were seeing in build to suit yields right now are somewhere between 8.5 and 9% and as low as 8. But most of the deals we're looking at are 8.5 and 9. And one deal we did last year was closer to 10. And that by the way is without land at 100% basis, okay. And what we are seeing on the ability to sell second generation assets into the market, depending how well leased they are obviously depending on where they are and the like because it could be a wide dispersion. But we were thinking those cap rates will be from the low eights to potentially, depending on how old the assets are to high eights and maybe even low nines, okay. And so it really depends on the blend. But honestly, we are thinking about it as more of an even trade than anything at this point. And in fact, if you consider the fact that the land is already on our balance sheet it's actually accretive from an overall cash flow perspective. So that I think that's the plus. What Bill was referring to in his comments regarding dilution is that, let's assume we do 700 to 800 million of development this year, we are going to probably pay for roughly, on a half year basis we pay for half of it, because we wouldn't start it all immediately and you got half of it next year. While, our view is that we'd like to capitalize those developments now, meaning that if we can sell assets in advance of that and be debt neutral and actually in fact in the short term you end up being debt positive, because you basically pay down your line in advance of your development costs but that will be dilutive. But the overall stabilization of that development vis-a-vis the cap rates that we think we can get will be pretty much a push. And then I am going to ask Ted, you want to make any comments along those lines in terms what we are seeing?

Yeah. I mean, the build-to-suit activity has been encouraging. We have a lot of questions on it. We are in over 100 markets and in over 100 markets, you are going to see some reasonable number of opportunities. Certainly less today than we saw two years ago. There is more interest and demand out there, than I think most people think and certainly than what we anticipated. Japan obviously yields would be less. But if we were to match buildings in Japan up with debt, I think our leverage returns will end up kind of blending that out. So that it again becomes a relatively neutral trade. The reason it's a neutral trade is we are doing development and we are getting a higher yield because of development. If we actually sell and contribute assets in the U.S. and buy assets in Europe or Japan that would be more dilutive. And we are real encouraged by what we are seeing on the markets and improving the overall quality of our portfolio long-term.

Our next question comes from the line of Paul Morgan with Morgan Stanley. Your line is open.

Hi, good morning. Can you just talk about your leasing strategy and whether it's evolving? Are you very focused on kind of monetizing the vacancy near-term or as you are getting more constructive as you said about demand and in 2010. Are you inclined to be somewhat more patient? And then maybe characterize that answer across the different geographies?

Paul, this is Ted. We are going to continue to -- we continue our focus on occupancy. We're meeting the market, I mean where people all -- you can call it aggressive in call it whatever you want. We're meeting the market and we're leasing our space. That's our primary goal and primary focus. As our portfolio gets more occupied, call it 92 to 93%, we will certainly take a look at ways to increase rents. We believe that day is coming. There is no new supply. There is no new supply being brought to the markets. We are encouraged by that dynamic, with GDP growth we think there will be net new demand, I think there will be net new demand overall and throughout the world in the next few years, no new supply coming in line. We were hoping to have the opportunity to push rents as Walt talked about in his remarks. Costs -- Although they have come down, they have not come down enough to offset what has been a drop in rent in movement and cap rates. And clearly there will be an increase in rents at the point in time when new development starts to take place. We are seeing that in our build to suit transactions and we are seeing in a few other transactions that are going on in the market that are build to suits, rents on the build to suit projects are higher than what you can lease a current vacant building for. Makes sense to us. We think that's going to, that's how it will play out over time. So in the trends pretty much throughout the world, Japan is still a very strong market for us. All building that we are -- we built in Japan for the most part are leasing at its kind of the pace at which we anticipated. We are getting the type of rents we anticipated. One nice dynamic in Japan is costs are down there. So on newer development deals, we're actually seeing a pick up in yield. And then in the balance of the world that we work within, I think it's relatively consistent with that of the U.S. and Europe are relatively in the same boat right now.

Chuck, do you want to add to that?

Paul, there are markets that are -- we have been pleasantly surprised with activity. One I would point out would be for example Houston. In Houston, we maintained above 95% occupancy for the last several quarters. We have other markets that are similar to that and that's bearing out in the fundamentals in those markets. We don't expect rents to turn immediately in those markets, but it's promising. Additionally, activity levels globally have improved slightly. It's still a little bit lumpy in various markets. But for the most part, we were starting to see activity, which would translate into hopefully higher occupancies and some potential rent growth say couple quarters from now, as opposed to immediately.

Let me add one more thing, too. In the markets that we track in the U.S. it's really interesting. In Q4, '08 and if you go quarter-by-quarter in terms of what happened with vacancy -- vacancy rates, vacancy rates increased in Q4, '08 to Q1, '09, 71 bips. Q1 to Q2, 65 bips, Q2 to Q3, 24 bips and then Q3 to Q4, 5 bips. I mean if you graph that out, it is clearly leveling out. And again we think that's because of the lack of new supply in the market and the overall just activity level is picking up. And I think you would see that relatively consistent throughout the world.

Our next question comes from the line of Sloan Bohlen with Goldman Sachs. Your line is open.

Hi, good morning, guys. Walt and probably Bill, too, you guys talked about basically being leverage neutral with regards to sales and development this year. But as we look ahead and look at the debt maturities in '12, particularly with the converts. What do you expect the plan will be towards a leveraged target at some point in the future and what do you expect to be as sources of how you go about delevering?

So let me take that the in essence we have been pretty consistent in terms of where we are targeting sort of overall leverage. And again that's a question of how you look at things, whether it's on a book basis, whether a look through basis, whether it's on any NAV et cetera and NAV beauty is in eye of the beholder. And so but let me purely from a book basis, we look at it and say we want to be in the low to mid-40s on a straight balance sheet perspective. Given some of the leverage in a couple of the funds, we look at it on a look through basis in the 45 to 50% levered basis. We believe that sort of level would provide us the opportunity ultimately for ratings upgrades if we can combine that, which we will in terms of increased FFO off the non-income producing assets today, to hit the interest coverage targets. And so that's where we are sort of planning things. In terms of how to deal with 2012 and '13 maturities, in the grand scheme of things, we said to be we are going to deal with it. And then we have access to a variety of I mean virtually every part of the capital market spectrum last year. We probably intend to do the same in 2010 and 2011. And right now, at least before everybody went into a blackout, the debt markets were pretty vibrant, the convert markets are vibrant. And so we intend to look at the spectrum of alternatives and pursue those and we'll give us a good opportunity to extend out debt maturities at the most reasonable cost. Clearly as we talked about, we have -- one of our objectives is to level out our debt maturities in a substantially better fashion than we dealt with in the past. And if you look out there right now, we've got a hold of 2017 and so seven year deal would be right up our alley. We clearly have a whole 10 years out. And Simon accessed the 30 year market and so we are looking at everything out there. And hang on and you will see.

Your next question comes from the line of Ross Nussbaum with UBS. Your line is open.

Hi, good morning, everyone. The data we look at for fourth quarter industrial shows the bulk distribution did meaningfully better on the demand front than flex and light manufacturing. Is this is a trend you seen inside of your portfolio? And if so how does it relate to the type, kind, size, location of assets that you plan on disposing of this year?

Ross, so let me just quickly answer that. First of all we really don't own flex or much like -- the only light manufacturing we own to my knowledge is in Mexico. And so we really don't own that much candidly, Ross, the truth matter I have been in business now for 25 to 26 years. And I am a big, big believer in bulk industrial. I am not a big believer in flex or light industrial. I don't like it. It's tends to be very heavily built I mean heavily built out from a TI perspective and light industrial tends to be very manufacturing oriented, which scares the heck out of me in most markets. So we are big bulk distribution guys and over the 25 years that I have been in the business. Bulk distribution has always done incredibly well, vis-a-vis the other two product types, because it's not heavily capital intensive. It tends to be usable to or I should say flexible to a lot of different users and that's why we invest in it. And that's why candidly, you read a lot of these occupancy numbers or vacancy numbers that are out there. People say, well industrial markets are 13 to 14% vacant. That's a bunch of baloney. It might be, but it is our product type. Not for class B or class A product. It's just not and so that's why we invest in that product type and it has outperformed and it will continue to outperform we believe down the road. Chuck, do you want to add to that?

I would echo and say it's highly utilitarian. More correlated to GDP and less correlated to job loss. And the typical light industrial or flex space is also competing in a couple of different arenas. One of those is office and that puts a lot of pressure on that product type that we don't experience.

Your next question comes from the line of Ki Kim with Macquarie. Your line is open.

Thank you. First, I turn to your capital deployment front, your guidance for 700 million of new development starts, how much of that have you actually identified in terms of talking in negotiations with tenants? And how do those deals compare to perhaps putting new equity into your funds or JVs at depressed NAV prices, i.e. from the prices, i.e. something like PEPR, which is trading at 30% below pays NAV?

Okay.

I’m not sure on the PEPR question. Maybe you can repeat that. I could certainly but just had respond to – its in interesting to note in the last six months of last year so last months into 336 million of develop starts or we signed agreement the total that amount in starts. So it's not at a pace that is unprecedented here. I mean the last six months we did it we think that the next six to 12 months, things will be better than the last six months. So we feel very comfortable with those numbers and I'm not sure.

Yeah. Your question about PEPR is in my mind more of a broader question, which is putting equity into our funds and investing in those. And we said that for the last 12 months that we believe there are opportunities to invest incremental capital into our funds because we know those assets the best. We built most of them, managed all of them. And we've done that. We put money into NA2. We put money into NA3. As we talked about on the call here, we put some more money into NAV in Q4 to buy down debt at a substantial discount. And we invested in PEPR in Q4 at a very nice coupon return on the convertible preferred. And so we do think that our funds represent some opportunities from time-to-time and that's a good thing. Let me turn to Gary just in the grand scheme of things.

I think you hit it on the head. We communicated in Q3, we communicated at NAREIT that we do believe that investment into our funds is something that we would pursue. We believe it's a great opportunity at the pricing levels we were seeing out there today.

In terms of priorities we are focused on monetizing our land and the ability to do these build to suits and monetize land and improve geographic diversity of portfolio is certainly a high priority to us. So fortunately, we are in an environment where seems to be several different opportunities for us. Very high on the priority is monetizing land and we are going to do that through these build to suit developments. Thanks for the question.

Your next question comes from the line of Michael Mueller with J.P Morgan. Your line is open.

The development pipeline yearend it looks like its above 64 picking up about a little over 64% lease. Can you talk about where you expect that to be at the end of 2010? And also I have you Bill, going back to the original AFFO question that started off the call, can you just lay out what you think the cap interest and G&A expense will be this year?

I'm going, before we talk about the development pipeline, let me make one clarification. I think you're probably familiar with this. The pipeline is 64. We were tracking a static pipeline which we put out a press release earlier in the quarter, this quarter that said 68%. And just so everybody understands the difference. Remember, keep in mind that we are contributing assets into the European fund that were leased. 64% represents that which we still if you will own on our balance sheet 100% of the 68% was tracking our overall progress in terms of leasing that original pipeline a year ago. In any case looking at the 64%, may be Ted you can give us a sense on, you want to talk about where you think we could be?

Yeah. Our expectation is somewhere between 80% and 90% leased. Last year we did extremely well in leasing up our pipeline. We leased approximately 16 million square feet. We've got about 19 million square feet to go to get that static pipeline to 100% occupancy. Typically you end right up at 100% but we certainly expect to end up in 95% over some period of time and we feel very comfortable with the 80% to 90% target and again we will continue to be focused on occupancy. Not only in this particular portfolio, the development portfolio but our overall portfolio as a company.

Bill on the capitalized interest?

Yeah. Then you have capitalized interest and capitalized G&A -- and again Jeff Banette [ph] just reminded, we apparently never disclosed exactly the capitalized G&A number. And so one of the things we will do in this 10-K we will disclose our capitalized G&A number and so wait for the 10-K on that. But in essence, we anticipate cap G&A to be roughly equal to last year's capitalized G&A. And on the cap interest front, we had about $94 million of capitalized G&A or capitalized interest last year. We probably expect about two-thirds of that to be capitalized this year.

Your next question comes from the line of Steven Frankel with Green Street Advisors. Your line is open.

Thank you. Can you just comment briefly on how your relationships with fund partners are right now? Some colors on funds two and three and provide color behind the impairment of the Eaton Vance Funds?

Let me start with the relationship and then I will turn it to Bill to talk about the impairments. We are talking to investors continuously about a variety of initiatives. There is no question that this has been an unprecedented time over the course of the last let's call it 12 to 24 months and investors not only with ProLogis but around the globe who invested in real estate have lost money. That's a fact. Where I think ProLogis shines and where we are getting tremendous credit from investors is that we are an operator. We have done a phenomenal job and we are getting recognized for that in terms how we managed these assets through this difficult period both in terms of occupancy and driving NOI. And quite frankly, in terms how we managed the debt maturities. We have, within the fund business in 2009 issued an extended over $2.225 billion worth of debt and repaid about 1.9 billion. So, on that side we have done a good job. I think we get very high marks. Again I think investors today are differentiating between strong operators which ProLogis is one. And between those who are just asset accumulators and today they indicated clearly to us they want to invest with us today and on a go-forward basis.

Yeah. And then on the Eaton Vance Funds to get to the second prior part of your question back in our NAREIT presentation and other presentations, we talked about the various debt levels inside our funds and identified those Eaton Vance Funds as one of three funds that are in the grand scheme of things more highly levered than the others, with the other two of those being NA II and NA III and within the Eaton Vance, there are five funds. Our partner asked us to take portfolios of two of those funds out to market and once we did that we had to take a look at those and what our expectations were for sales et cetera and look more deeply at is there an impairment associated with those. And we took an impairment in Q4 because of that sales activity. Those funds, the debt doesn't come due for until 2012. The funds don't mature until 2014. We believe there are opportunities to create value in some of those over time. But because of that sales activity, we felt it most prudent to look at our own balance sheet and take an impairment on two of those five funds.

Only II and III?

Only II and III, I reckon are more highly levered. They were both put in place at the top of the market back in summer of 2007. We have a great relationship in my opinion with those partners and Citi is our partner on NA II. We worked through some debt issues and resolutions on that with Citi late or early in the summer last year, invested more capital into NA II, extended the loan for seven years and so we think those assets are great assets. On the NA III its Lehman is our partner. We probably joked a lot about Lehman a year ago from the standpoint we couldn't get hold of anybody. Candidly, Lehman has been a great partner. Together, we both put in money into NA III, paid down the portion of the mezz loan that State Street Bank has and again those funds are cash flowing well with no real near term debt maturities and so we feel pretty good about NA III.

Operator, we have time for two more questions.

Your next question comes from the line of George Auerbach with ISI Group. Your line is open.

Thanks. Good morning. On page A6 in the supplemental you show that the increment to NOI completed but not yet stabilized in the portfolio is around $50 million which hasn't changed dramatically since the $56 million figure from two quarters ago. I understand the timing difference is between leasing the portfolio up and recognizing cash flow. But why isn't this figure going down more dramatically, given some of leasing progress made in 2009? And second can you help us understand the timing for realizing that 50 million of cash.

George. I am sorry, can you tell us, for whatever reason I can't hear you that well. What page are you referring to against?

It's A6. Just the difference between the pro forma NOI and the stabilized portfolio and what is being recognized today. It just hasn't gone down that much over the last couple quarters. Just Wondering, why that is.

Okay. I don't know if we need to get back to him and.

Let me just ask you, George, are you netting the two numbers, on that on page A, are you netting the 25 against the 75?

Yes.

All right. That shouldn't happen. The 25 what that schedule is meant to do is show what is the adjusted NOI on our wholly owned direct portfolio including our development portfolio and then subtract out the NOI associated with that the vast majority of which is our development portfolio. And then look at the development portfolio of what we think the quarterly NOI is at stabilization. You take the 148, you back out of that the $25 that is in large part just associated with the development portfolio, to get to the core portfolio of about 123 in quarterly NOI. And then you would add back the 75 which is what we view as the stabilized potential from the development portfolio. Don't net the two. And if you have other questions, we will be happy to answer them directly. Give Melissa a call at the end of this and I will jump on the call as well.

Operator, we have time for one more question.

Your next question comes from the line of Michael O'Dell [ph] with AIG Asset [ph]. Your line is open.

Thanks for taking the call. Just a question, looking at your supplemental on page 6.2 and the adjustment for the borrowing limitations. Just wanted some color on exactly what the 1.58 billion related to our uncovered asset pool, how that is calculated to in terms of what exactly the banks are including as secured debt and in connection with that the appropriate pledged assets. Then on top of that, just as is it, as of looking at the refinancing of the facility to 2.25 billion in October, based on these numbers, you have a shortfall in your facility. Am I looking at that 1.8 billion improperly? Just some color on exactly what that 1.8 billion is, because at this point, people are focused on 2012 and 2013. If my calculations are appropriate based on this 1.8 billion adjustment plus your 800 million outstanding, you have a shortfall on your credit facility.

That is a mouthful.

Unfortunately, Michael, I don't think we have the time to answer all that but Bill.

Let me touch on it and then we can follow up with you directly if need be. Look, in the big picture, we have a borrowing base limitation that was put in place in the global line of credit. In my opinion, the borrowing base limitation is probably too stringent. We have contacted all of our banks and basically said we will revisit that in short order. And I intend to revisit that deeply in the next 60 days or so. What it does is it provides a limitation on the amount you can draw on the line. And it's complicated to walk through but we can do that. So our current capacity on the line is $1.1 billion as of the end of the year. And I think that addresses that again. Walking through the borrowing base, we have to spend a lot more time. There was so much more to the questions.

I think we will have to get back on the details. At this point in time, we need to wrap up the call. We would like to thank everybody for being on and look forward to talking to you next quarter. Operator?

Thank you for participating in today's ProLogis fourth quarter 2009 year end financial results conference call. This conference call will be available for replay beginning today at 1 PM Eastern Standard Time through eleven fifty-nine PM Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, February 25, 2010. To access this replay, you may dial 1-800-642-1687 domestically or area 706-645-9291 internationally. The replay passcode is 49471953. Again, that replay passcode is 49471953. Thank you. You may now disconnect.