Good day everyone, and welcome to the Mack-Cali Realty Corporation's Fourth Quarter 2007 Conference Call. Today's call is being recorded. At this time I would like to turn the conference over to the President and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Mitchell Hersh. Please go ahead sir.

Thank you, operator. Good morning, everyone, and thank you for joining Mack-Cali's fourth quarter and year end 2007 Earnings Call. With me today are Barry Lefkowitz, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer and Michael Grossman, Executive Vice President. On a legal note, I must remind everyone that certain information discussed on this call may constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Federal Securities Law. Although we believe the estimates reflected in these statements are based on reasonable assumptions, we cannot give assurance that the anticipated results will be achieved. We refer you to our press release and annual and quarterly reports filed with the SEC for risk factors that could impact the company. First, I'd like to review some of our results and activities for the quarter and what we are seeing in our markets. And then of course, Barry will review our financial results, and Mike will give you an update on our leasing results. FFO for the fourth quarter of 2007 came in at $0.89 per share, as compared to $0.87 per share for the fourth quarter of 2006. Our occupancies increased during to 92.7%, which is up from last quarter's 92.9%, reflecting strong leasing activity of over 1.1 million square feet. Rents for the quarter rolled down by about 1.9%, compared to last quarter's 0.8% roll up. However, this roll down was in fact skewed by a handful of transactions that in fact were very beneficial to Mack-Cali, and I'm going to discuss some of those larger transactions in a few moments. Our tenant improvement and commission expenses for the quarter were $2.82 per square foot per year, compared to last quarter's $2.98 per square foot per year. While the economics of lease transactions remain very competitive, we are managing to deal with tenant's concessions…

Thanks, Mitchell. Net income available to common shareholders for the fourth quarter of 2007 was $15.8 million, or $0.24 a share, versus $67.4 million or $1.7 per share for last year. For the year ended December 31, 2007, net income available to common share holders amounted to $108.5 million or $1.61 per share, as compared to $142.7 million or $2.28 per share. The major differences between the two years, is that we had some substantial sales of assets and gains that we recognized in ’06 which didn’t repeat in ’07. FFO available to common shareholders for the quarter amounted to $73 million or $0.89 per share, versus $68.2 million or $0.87 a share in ’06. For the year ended December 31st of 2007, FFO available to common shareholders was $293.9 million or $3.56 per share, versus $290.5 million or $3.73 per share in '07. Other income for the fourth quarter of 2007 included approximately $570,000 in lease termination fees. Fourth quarter of last year had lease termination fees of $3.8 million. For the year 2007, we had termination fees of $10.1 million, as compared to $6.9 million in '06. Same store net operating income, which excludes lease termination fees on a GAAP basis, was up 6.5% for the fourth quarter of '07 and for the year increased by 2.5%. Same-store net operating income on a cash basis increased by 7.7% for the fourth quarter, and for the year was up 4.9%. Our same-store portfolio for the fourth quarter was 28.5 million square feet, which represents about 97.6% of the portfolio. Today, we have about $291 million outstanding on our credit facility. Our unencumbered portfolio at the end of the quarter was 238 properties aggregating 25.7 million square feet of space, which represents about 87.7% of the portfolio. At quarter end, Mack-Cali's total un-depreciated book assets equaled $5.5 billion and our debt-to-un-depreciated asset ratio was 40.2%. Our debt-to-market cap ratio was 44.4%. We had interest coverage of 3.3 times and fixed charge coverage of 2.8 times for the fourth quarter. We had interest coverage of 3.3 times and fixed charge of 2.9 times for the year ended 2007. We ended the quarter with total debt of about $2.2 billion which had a weighted average interest rate of 6.8%. Also, I would like to note that during 2008, we have very minimal debt maturities. We have roughly $12.5 million which comes due in the mortgage in August of '08. Please note that under SEC Regulation G, concerning non-GAAP financial measures such as FFO, we are required to provide an explanation of why we believe such financial measures are relevant and reconciled into net income. This is available on our website at www.mack-cali.com, or our supplement package and earnings release, which include the information required by Regulation G as well as our 10-K. Now, Mike will cover the leasing activity.

Thanks Barry. Thanks to a solid leasing performance across all our major markets, we achieved a 50 basis point increase in the lease space for the fourth quarter, which enabled us to close the year at 92.7%. This is the highest percentage leased since the third quarter of 2004 and 70 basis points above our fourth quarter '06 results. For the year we signed 519 transactions, representing 4.3 million square feet. The 1.1 million square feet leased during the fourth quarter was consistent with previous results, but it will be challenging to stay in that level of leasing volume given the current economic conditions. We retained 88.8% expiring square footage in the fourth quarter and 71.7% of expiring space for the full year. The $2.82 per square foot per year for the quarter and the $2.72 for the full year, occupancy costs were significantly below 2006 levels, despite highly competitive markets. The 1.9% roll-down for the quarter was skewed by a handful of large transactions, but as Mitch noted, was very beneficial transactions for the company. Moving with four deals with the highest impact from the calculation resulted in a 0.8% rent roll-up. This is a better management of the bulk of our leasing activity, which was composed of transactions of 10,000 square feet or less. For the full year 2007, we averaged a 0.2% roll-down overall. Expirations for 2008 and now for 7.2% of space leased, about 30% of which will expire in first quarter of year and 6.8% of rent. Thanks to our continuing early renewal efforts, 2009 expirations amounted to only 9% of space leased and 8.9% of rent. As a measure of activity within our markets, the total numbers of space showings during 2007 in Mack-Cali buildings was nearly identical to 2006, both overall and on…

Thanks Mike. Before we open the lines to your questions, I just want to make a few further comments in closing. I want to reiterate that our outlook remains very cautious considering today's economic environment. However, we navigate through this period of uncertainty with strong occupancies as evidenced by our report today with strong credit quality behind our occupancies in our revenue stream, a strong balance sheet, and no near-term debt maturities. We are carefully watching the market and we'll continue to focus on effectively managing our properties, and ringing out efficiencies and efficacies wherever we can. As I've said before, we continue to believe that there will in fact be opportunities. We have a strong balance sheet in the capital to act on those when opportunities do in fact arise Concerning speculation in the market place about larger transactions, I think we've seen a lot of change occurring in the market place, and a lot of lack of clarity with respect to what opportunities might be available. I thought I would just make a few comments. I think as evidenced overtime, we don't necessarily subscribe to the notion that bigger is necessarily better. Our goal, as demonstrated over the last many years, has been focused on continuing to upgrade our portfolio, and to try to harvest value over time when opportunities emerge. Especially in times like these, I can tell you that we won't stress either our human capital or our financial capital. That's not to say that we won’t look at every opportunity that's available in the marketplace very carefully, to continue our role as market leader, and to continue to create value for our shareholders. But, whatever opportunities we take advantage of, will need to be very compelling and need to demonstrate that it can produce and create value for our shareholders. So with that, we'll open the floor to questions. Operator?

Thank you, sir. (Operator Instructions) And we'll go first to Jordan Sadler with KeyBanc Capital Markets.

Thanks and good morning. Mitch, I had a question regarding the sort of opportunistic side of things. You made some commentary that it sounded like you are not necessarily a buyer today understandably, and I was just curious as to what we could think about and what you might be looking for where you might become more opportunistic or would look to invest -- what is it you are looking for essentially before you would put money to work today?

Good morning Jordan. Again, I think that there will be a subset of opportunities that will emerge as a result of some of the aggressive underwriting that's been done with particularly highly leveraged either funds or individual players and investors in the market. Obviously, the capital markets and the credit markets for sure are largely shutdown. The debt markets for investment-grade rated credit in the unsecured markets are shutdown largely, so certainly this realm of employing high leverage with underwriting and anticipated dramatic rent growth will provide some opportunity. I think we will continue to use basic metrics with respect if it's in asset, replacement crossed comparisons, I mean we are prolific developer when the time is right, and we have the expertise. So we understand what valuations are with regard to new development and what the cost of development is. So, that will be a metric. We'll need to understand if it's a more stabilized asset, what the opportunities for growth are, setting sort of a floor and a bar again, using basic metrics of not so much cap rates, but how we can grow the income and how that might be accretive to the company and what sort of market share penetration does it afford us etcetera. Can it help us become more significant and more competitive and have an advantage in a particular sub-market or market. So I think that’s one element I think with regard to any sort of larger transactions. We’ll need to understand what the risks are with respect to the human capital side the integration side. I think we’ve demonstrated through the -- for example the Gale acquisition that we remained focused that gave us the ability through that acquisition to enhance our market share, to enhance certain lines of business if you’ll…

From a market perspective are you -- should we assume that the New York plans would be incrementally accelerated or maybe put to the side?

Well, we'll continue to look at opportunities within the New York City marketplace, but I wouldn't basically take a position one way or the other. I still think, as though many, many others including the analytic community that the New York Cafe Center has been somewhat barrier constraint and so remain a vital market and a vibrant market. There are naturally significant concerns about what the financial service industry does with respect to employment and how that might affect service employment and other sector that are interdependent and what that's going to do occupancies and is going to put somewhat space back on the market in New York and how's that going to affect rents and underwriting, but and I don't mean to abasing, but we're going to look at every opportunity that emerges. We're not a buyer of -- certainly at this level of trophy assets on the avenue, that's not been our profile. It's never been a stated goal. And I suspect that there will be some opportunities that more conform with the highly leverage guys and I'm not talking about the notable situations, I'm talking about there are many of those situations, but we're going to be real careful about the underwriting and how we feel about the continuum of an income stream on a property specific basis. We are kind of in unchartered waters right now, with the confluence of all of these events that are occurring in the economy, and when you have a federal reserve and a treasury department that are struggling for ways to deal with the economic fallout right out, it's a time to kind of sit back and watch and wait and be very, very comforted in the notion that you are not pressured to do anything either in the equity or the debt side of the business.

Do you think you would try to raise capital through some asset sales here or do you think that's on the [sidelines that did]?

First of all, the availability of liquidity in the market other than very rare instances is almost non-existent today. Certainly, if you wanted to do secured financing, you could do that and no matter how good the underlying credit is or the sponsorship, today you are looking at a 50% to 60% leveraged level, plus or minus, maybe in the higher end in the case of a Mack-Cali to be able to do secured financing. And so the equity component is very significant, and the type of assets that we might consider disposition of, to continue to upgrade our portfolio without sacrificing market share or our ability to build into an economy that's regaining strength in the future in terms of new development. The type of assets, are not appealing to the sovereign wealth nations and they are more akin to the leveraged buyer, who is largely out of the market. And so, why take the risk of failed execution, coupled with a demoralized management team with respect to those portfolios at this point in the cycle. I don’t think the risk reward equation is there right now.

Thanks for the color, Mitch.

You’re welcome.

We’ll go next to Sloan Bohlen in Goldman Sachs.

Good morning guys. Mitch, just a quick question on guidance. I was wondering if you could maybe elaborate about what uncertainties you are kind of baking in, what are the main risks you guys see, is it single tenant risks or people giving back space, whether that will be there, the Hewlett-Packard lease or other tenants that you are looking at?

Yeah, I think the risk is not so much a risk as much as it is a timing element. Yes, as I pointed out before, it's quite conceivable that there will be fluctuation in our occupancy as a result of some of these larger vacancies, and demand is slow to replace those tenants at the Greenbelt, Maryland right now, demand is slow in some of the larger blocks of space. We haven’t seen the kind of velocity that we saw a year ago, and so I guess, we lack clarity on timing of when we’re going to regain or stabilize the occupancy at the current level and when we’re going to start collecting income on it, and we think that right now it’s a little bit of muddle picture. We feel that certainly the range of guidance, given some recent activity, as you know we talked about in terms of stock repurchase and so forth, is comfortable for us. And over the course of the year, we'll have more clarity on that.

So is it fair to say that it's more about leasing up the vacancy you currently have in the portfolio as opposed to we haven't seen sublease space coming on the market or people actively talking about giving back space?

Yeah, I could tell you right now that but for one discussion on the waterfront property and it's not significant, and it is a financial service tenant in a correlated industry. Nobody is talking to us right now about given back space or putting block of sublease space to any degree into the market. So it is strictly about being able to deal with our vacancy and having dealt with that vacancy, we will be able to collect the cash income as opposed to GAAP reporting.

Okay. And just one quick question on Jersey City, you kind of alluded to it, but you guys had fairly strong leasing in that market, particularly with financial services tenants, the competitive year has also signed a lease with the financial service tenant. Can you just characterize what the talks with those types of tenants are given the pending layoffs potentially in Manhattan?

Again, I can reiterate the fact that we have just completed some very significant transactions. We have in 101 Hudson Street where we purchased the asset, I guess now three years ago this month we have moved rents from at that time the underwriting standards of 28 and change a foot to close to $40 a foot. So there clearly is a dimension at the marketplace, that still sees a significant value in locating in the Jersey City waterfront; taking advantage of some of the incentive program, our business employment, the [beat the brat] retention agreement, the urban enterprise zone and still looking across various parts of the river, at range that exceed the ones I just recited by multiple and still get high quality real estate and a dynamic community where things are happening and it's got cash and so forth. So we have been able to do quite well along the waterfront, there was a transaction announced there within the last few days of a major financial service firm that signed a very significant lease not our property along the waterfront, because we have no vacancy, but a very significant lease and the generating factor in that, particular transaction and we were involved, we just, we couldn't accommodate the space, I guess that's a good thing, was the economic disparity between being located in midtown and being located in midtown west, which is the waterfront. So the waterfront area remains pretty healthy right now, but there is an overwriting concern I think in the minds eye of the financial service community as to, will there be layoffs and what impact is that going to have on currently leased space. Now, again, we just signed up between the two transactions I talked about, well over 200,000 square feet within the last month of both renewals and new incremental absorption on the part of, one is an insurance company and the other one is a global bank. And so I can't imagine that they took that space unless they were committed to occupying it as oppose and having thought that through carefully and deliberately as opposed to being so vulnerable and thinking from day-to-day that they might have the sub-leases. So we are pretty comfortable with where we are in terms of our waterfront properties right now.

Okay. Thank you. That's helpful.

You are welcome.

We'll go next to [George Arbuck] with Merrill Lynch.

Hi, good morning everyone. Mitch, does your '08 guidance assume that the Greenbelt asset remains vacant through '08?

I hope it doesn't remain vacant through '08, but assumes that by the time we get it leased and get it rent paying, '08 pretty much gone.

Okay. And what you are expectations for overall portfolio occupancy in '08?

It's hard to predict. I would tell you that next quarter or the quarter we are in actually, as a result of some of these expirations, it could decline slightly, in fact, it probably will, but I would hope that we are roughly in a zone of where we've been over the last few years, with a 9 certainly in front of our occupancy at year end. No matter what happens

Okay. And finally across your portfolio, what is the average contractual bump-up on your in-place rents?

I am not sure exactly what the average is. We look to achieve anywhere between $0.5 and 3% depending on what we can accomplish on an annualize basis, and naturally some of these rent increases are aggregated in five year increment, so plus or minus and along the waterfront properties, more traditionally there annual bumps in that zone, in that range.

Great. Thanks so much.

You are welcome.

We'll go next to Jamie Feldman with UBS.

Great, thank you. I guess, I will follow up on some of the last question. So in terms of '08 guidance your assumption for leasing spread?

Flat.

Flat? Okay.

We basically, other than you saw the fact we are roughly at, what I would call, market-to-market. But these larger transactions, which really shore-up the portfolio, and certainly the waterfront portfolio. We are actually slightly positive, but anybody who tells you in this environment, other than in anecdotal instance or rare circumstance, that rents are going up, I'd really question that.

It sounds like your same-store growth faced an income rent bump and then offset by whatever occupancy decline you may have.

Yeah, pretty much.

Okay. In terms of, I guess back on the growth issue, how does maybe built to development market look pressure core market where there any RFPs out there that may begin construction in '08 or even '09, as we are looking out?

I would say largely the answer is no. There are a couple of situations that are being evaluated actually by the tenants right now in the Parsippany marketplace that are working with us. This is one way or the other; I would expect will result in continued opportunity for Mack-Cali, in considering a built-to-suit in the campus versus some other options within the campus. But there is such a high degree of uncertainty in the economy right now that -- it's largely not a topic of discussion today.

Okay. And then staying on development. Can we have update maybe on the Filene’s Basement project?

Well as you know, we have a 15% position in that development. We are very encouraged with recent discussions with potential lenders, the construction financing element is being lead by our partner Vornado Capital Markets Group, and they are working or I should say we are collectively working, but they are leading that to put together a club if you will to provide something in the order of $500 million to $550 million of construction financing the project is somewhere around at $710 million or so project, and all the approvals and so forth have been obtained. And there is actually work going on, on the site, some of the work with respect to the historic building and the Filene’s Basement building. So its forging ahead and we have a finite capital commitment at this juncture and we are hoping that we'll be able to put this financing package together.

And what about on demand side?

A lot of demand frankly on -- still there is no real new office product available outside of the financial district, this is adjacent to it. It's the next opportunity in Boston. We're seeing a fair amount of demand on the part of law firms. We're looking at net rents plus or minus in the $50 range in terms of the price talk right now. We are working with our partners, Vornado, J.P. Morgan and Gale International on the possibility of a pre-sold hotel, although that has not yet been finalized, and that would be roughly between 250 rooms and 260 rooms, still a little bit fluid in terms of how the design can evolve. And Vornado is working on a whole variety of different opportunities in the retail sector, lot of interest in the remaining retail space outside of the Filene's Basement. So, I would tell you that demand is strong and we are very optimistic about that project. And frankly, just in terms of Boston itself, we have properties upon the northern quadrant in partnership with JP Morgan, the Route 93 portfolio. We have seen not withstanding all of the issues in the economy. There still continues to be a driving demand in the biotechnology cargo predominantly. And the elements of pharmaceuticals that are more focused on biotech and research. So, we are pretty encouraged with what we are seeing up in Boston right now.

Okay. And then finally, two quick modeling questions for Barry. The other income was higher than we expected and operating expenses were below. Is there anything one-time in nature in there?

No, we still continue to have other income in the $3.5 million to $4 million range as the way we modeled it. Obviously, it could be a little bit higher and a little bit lower in each of the quarters. And in terms of operating expenses, generally they have been holding a little higher than they were last year, but principally we are seeing most of the growth in the operating expenses related to utility cost.

Thank you very much.

You are welcome.

We'll go next to Susan Berliner with Bear Stearns.

Good morning. Barry, I was wondering if you talk about, I know you have a decent amount outstanding on your bank line and what your plans are for refinancing or if you are just going to keep it on your line?

Well, at the present time, we have a $775 million credit facility. We have about $291 million drawn. That credit line has roughly 3.5 years left to run with another one year extension option, and as I mentioned before, we have virtually no maturities this year, we have a $300 million bond that's' comes due in March of next year. So at this point in time, we are evaluating what we might do if we see the debt markets open up and we can see some reasonable activity there, we might go to the unsecured market. We will also look at the mortgage market for a term out, but we’re not pressured to do anything in particular at this point.

Great thanks. And Mitch if I apologize if someone had asked this before I had hop off for one second, the investment you made last quarter which was kind of an opportunistic investment in a competitor. Can you just update us to where you guys stand on that?

Sure. There is no change in that investment. I would tell you that it’s about even, maybe slightly in the money at this juncture and so no change at this point.

Great, thank you.

You’re welcome.

We’ll take the next question Michael Knott in Green Street.

Hey guys. Hey Mitchell, can you just update us on the Gale/Green acquisition that you had done back in I think ’06?

Okay. We talked about the joint venture which element of it?

The portfolio acquisition.

Yeah, we’re managing the portfolio. We’ve all the issues that impact the markets are effecting, the varying degrees, the assets within that portfolio. And so there’s not much new, we’re still on it with SL Green. And we’ve some financing on it with Gramercy which was part of the acquisition of financing, but there’s really no change Michael.

Has it performed up to your expectations.

It's performed, let's put it this way we bifurcated those properties into a joint venture because there were higher risk properties with respect to occupancies. And so I think, we did the right thing, certainly for Mack-Cali shareholders by doing that, and I think SL Green, understands that we are doing the best that we can to rebuild expirations within the portfolio. We've had some successes with [Arc Pharma] and some others in transactional activity or leasing activity and some of the properties are relatively quit now. So I think it in fact has performed up to our expectations and that's why we joint ventured it.

And did part of that portfolio I guess sold during the quarter, it look like in the --

Yeah, that is Troy, Michigan and Naperville. We effectively, other than a nominal interest for structuring reasons at no economic participation in that and so may have been a little bit confusing, I notice that in one analyst report that talked about some expenses of $30 million, basically that all related to the sale of Naperville and Troy, which was done at a loss below book basis, but had no impact on Mack-Cali.

Okay. And then can you talk about your expectation for possibly utilizing the remaining balance of your share repurchase authorization and how you might think about that activity relative to other capital allocation opportunity?

Yeah, I indicated before that we are not pressured to do anything. We're operating with earnings guidance within a range as has been indicated several times on the call. We're in a fairly flexible position with respect to our balance sheet, out plus or minus $300 million on the line. So we have probably all pooled on a credit basis or a debt basis another $500 million, $600 million, $700 million without even looking at mortgage financing on any of our assets, which are largely unencumbered, I think our unencumbered pool is 91% plus or minus. So capital is not an issue right now, but we are going to utilize it very wisely, and it's also very affordable frankly, because borrowing on the line today at spreads over LIBOR, certainly using our bid facility is a pretty efficient debt instrument right now in the marketplace. But and not to repeat Barry's comment to Susan Berliner, but if we see some level of efficiency in the unsecured markets and no risk of execution per se, we are going to go in that direction at some point. But with regard to the stock buyback, I think we have demonstrated a commitment and a confidence level by investing a $104 million up to the end of the year. It's accretive, we are happy to have invested in the company, we still have this marginal amount of $46 million that we can invest, but right now in a illiquid environment, where again credit markets, debt markets have shut down and what you have is, what you have right now with no sun on the horizon in terms on when these markets are going to open up. We're going to treat every dollar of our available capacity as extremely precious, and at some point maybe that will result in more buybacks and may be it will result in utilizing capital for other things. But right now, it's resulting in a lot of patience with no pressure to do anything.

Okay. Thanks a lot.

You are welcome.

We will go next to Michael Bilerman with Citi.

Hi, Mitch and Barry. Just going back to the stake that you bought last quarter. Going through the 10-K, it looks like the value went down by about $800,000, so about a 16% decline in the fourth quarter relative to where you bought it. And I am just wondering, are you really regretting buying back your own stock that you saw value, you obviously bought the small stake as you perceived some value. Why not be more aggressive and continue to buy more if it was down so much?

Okay. First of all, congratulation Michael on your new role in Citigroup.

Thank you.

You're welcome. You kind of broke up on the question, but I think its centers around the investment in the securities investment that we made in another company that reflected an $800,000 loss because it runs through the equity. Is that right?

Yes.

As with any of these companies -- any company that has securities on their balance sheets, it's sort of in an ephemeral market-to-market, and that's all that's a reflection of. I can tell you that generally speaking as of, let's say yesterday, we were about neutral or slightly in the money on that investment. The investment was made clearly for strategic reasons, a seat at the table type of thing, because of distractions and other matters that have affected everyone, including that particular company. I haven't had the opportunity of having that seat at the table, and if that persists, I will make a decision as to what to do with that investment at the appropriate time.

Right. A question just on G&A. What was the big spike in quarter and what is the outlook for next year?

It was just -- basically with bonuses and chewing up some of the accruals around the compensation plans.

Okay. And then Mitch, as you reflect on -- you had your comments about wanting to being conservative in this environment which I completely make sense in that. Are you going to be very cognizant of the underwriting and what things should be priced? As you reflect now on your purchase of 125 Broad, if you were having to purchase that asset today and you are went in there, a low 4 initial cap rate yield, would anything change?

I think our basis in the asset is attractive. I think that the all-in rents are well under today's market. So, I am satisfied with that acquisition. I am concerned about the overall tone of the New York City marketplace, given the dominance of financial services. In the first lease, that's expiring and the building have a little more than two year or about two years remaining. I talked to the tenant. I think that tenant is you. And at this point, I am getting the proverbial -- we don't know what tomorrow is going to bring, let alone two years from now, but the comfort that we have is that all of the comp leasing that’s been done in around 125 has been done at $15 to $20 a foot, if not more than the rate in that particular lease. So, we are pretty comfortable with our bases.

But you said if you a better asset came to market today, you were buying [Audio Disturbance]

You're pulling away.

Can you repeat the question, you broke up.

Sorry. If the asset came to market today and where do you think that asset would trade, even if you borrowed something else, you think that it would still be pertaining --

I mean, assuming that a trade could be done in this environment with respect to the capital constraints that exist on potential purchasers, clearly we’ve see nothing but price appreciation since we bought the asset and not to be forgotten the fact that it was part of a strategic transaction with SL Green where we traded an asset that we didn’t particularly view as core, for almost the same pricing metrics on a per square foot and a cap rate basis. So, that’s certainly needs to be viewed as part of that overall transaction. But for the one year since we've owned it more or less, we’ve seen nothing but a rise in prices. Actually, there is a changing, evolving situation in New York now.

Right. That I completely understand. Okay, thank you.

You are very welcome.

We will go next to Mitch Germain with Banc of America Securities

Good afternoon. Mitch the Greenbelt asset, I apologize if you already addressed that, I jumped off for a second. Re-leasing, do you think that it's consistent with your overall mark-to-market or do you think that it might lease up lease down?

One good thing about Greenbelt and that whole line of marketplace the rents don't move much one way to other and when we underwrote the acquisition, we had enough knowledge to at least assume in the underwriting that they were going to vacate the building, because it was discussion at that time about a consulting contract that they had with the component of the government that wasn't potentially going to be renewed. In that marketplace, you're looking at mid $20 rent, it reminds me anecdotally of West Chester. Good times, bad times the rents are always mid 20s plus or minus. So I think we'll be fine there, just a question of seeing little more demand and as I alluded to that impacting our view of guidance you may have jumped off the call at that point as a result of when we might actually see cash rent out of that particular releasing.

I got that point, okay. And what about [Cali] does it requires any specific capital cost?

No nothing more than traditional, standard TI cost.

Okay, great. And specifically in any of your markets are you seeing any increase in the concession package.

The answer to that is no, actually if you look -- let me kind of bifurcate the answer. If you look at our statistics we have certainly been driving down the cost relative to TI packages, TI commission packages on a per square foot annualized basis. So we've met some reasonable goals in that area, that's not to say that certain markets aren’t weaker than others. For example, frankly the Princeton market has remained difficult sluggish market and the cost, the TI packages and concession packages there are probably greater, I think than virtually any other market that we operate in New Jersey. So you have to look at each on its own.

Great. Thanks guys.

You are welcome.

And we have a follow up from Jordon Sadler with KeyBanc Capital Markets.

Hi, guys. Just on this marketable security stake. You said you wanted to have exceeded the table. Is this distress situation?

No. It's a strategic situation where my view was that there were aspects of a particular company that could be incrementally beneficial to Mack-Cali. It's not a distress situation and frankly don't, well, I guess I shouldn't say they are not in the public sector, but it's not a distress situation.

And earlier you spoke of sort of investments looking to sort of focus the portfolio and/or upgrade the quality of portfolio in an environment like this or in more difficult environment if you'd invest opportunistically with this and also there is no change to sort of this investment. Are those in sort of the same context, would this be an upgrade to the portfolio and has anything changed in terms of your view of this type of investment?

This particular investment would be an enhancement of the portfolio in markets or sub-markets that we currently have certain positions in, so it would be an enhancement, the quality of the assets would fit within the definition of Class A assets from within our universe, and there were also certain other synergistic elements to the company that in terms of a few various business areas that I felt could be strategically beneficial. I don’t know what more I can tell you on it other than it fits within the pattern of what we’ve been doing.

That’s helpful. And have you been in contact with the other management team?

Yeah.

Okay, so [you're hedged]?

Yes. But I am not suggesting for a moment that, that’s going anywhere. But the answer is, yes, I’ve had some contact with the counterpart.

But you are basically going to hold this position just in case something happens or if something still -- this is not fully resolved or played out at this point.

Not fully resolved and I am undecided.

Okay, that’s helpful. Thank you. My other question was just as it related to the Jersey City, and the lease is signed during the quarter. When did those leases commence during the quarter? Was it October 1st or is there just a significance for modeling purposes? I'm curious.

I think in both instances they commence in the first quarter, in the period we’re in.

Sure. In the first quarter of ’08, right?

Yes.

That’s helpful. Thank you.

You’re welcome.

And there appear to be no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the call back to Mr. Hersh for any additional or closing comments.

Well, thank you all for joining us on today's call. I hope you all found that informative. The interaction is very helpful to us and we look forward to reporting to you again next quarter. Have a good day.

Again that does conclude today's conference call. Thank you for your participation. You may disconnect at this time.