Greetings and welcome to the Cedar Realty Trust Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2012 Earnings Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. A brief question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. (Operator Instructions) As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Brad Cohen, Investor Relations for ICR. Thank you, sir. You may begin.

Good afternoon. At this time, management would like me to inform you that certain statements made during the call, which are not historical facts, may be deemed forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities and Exchange Commission of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Although the company believes that expectations reflecting any forward-looking statements are based upon reasonable assumptions, they are subject to various risk and uncertainties. The company can provide no assurance that expectations will be achieved and that actual results may or will differ. Many other facts and risks that could cause actual results to differ materially from expectations are detailed in the company’s press release, which was put out this afternoon, and from time-to-time in the company’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The company undertakes no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements reflected in any circumstances after the date of the company’s release. It is now my privilege to turn the call over to Mr. Bruce Schanzer, Chief Executive Officer and President. Bruce?

Thanks, Brad, and welcome to the fourth quarter 2012 earnings call of Cedar Realty Trust. 2012 was noteworthy as the first full year during which I served as CEO and Phil Mays served as CFO. It was a very eventful year and I would like think a very successful one. The measures we have taken since the management change are in furtherance of our objective to cause Cedar to be recognized as a company with safe and defensive assets, that produces solid per share results with predictable and sustainable growth. A hallmark of our strategy is our disciplined and analytical approach to capital allocation, with a keen focus on driving growth on a per share basis and not merely the growth of our enterprise. During 2012, we effectively executed our near-term divestiture strategy with just a few assets still remaining to be placed under contract and with the company on track to achieve our leverage target of being below eight times levered on a debt-to-EBITDA basis when we close on the sale of our last asset. Despite all our divestitures and de-levering, we generated $0.50 per share of operating FFO for 2012 inclusive of a $0.04 lease termination fee. Even after adjusting for this non-recurring income, our result represents a $0.01 beat to our initial 2012 FFO guidance of $0.40 to $0.45. Moreover, we anticipate that our 2013 results will represent a solid year-over-year improvement, especially considering that we intend to continue our divestiture and de-levering process during the course of this year. We’re very pleased that we have been able to improve our FFO per share while simultaneously improving our balance sheet and portfolio. As was previously disclosed, during the fourth quarter of 2012, we closed on the unwind of our joint venture with RioCan. We executed this unwind…

Thanks, Bruce and good evening everyone. On this call, I will highlight our operating results, continued balance sheet progress and provide comments about our initial 2013 guidance. Operating FFO for the fourth quarter was $0.12 per diluted share and for the full year was $0.50 per diluted share. As noted on prior calls, the full year results include $3 million or $0.04 per share of lease termination fee income associated with replacing the dark anchor at Oakland Commons. Excluding this one-time termination fee income, operating FFO would have been $0.46 per share for 2012 compared to $0.49 per diluted share for 2011. This reduction in FFO per share is consistent with what we communicated at the start of our disposition and de-levering program and is modest when you consider that we can currently reduce debt-to-EBITDA by almost a full turn. Accordingly, we are very pleased with these results and believe our accomplishments in 2012 are building a solid foundation for the future of Cedar. Same-property NOI, excluding the timing impact associated with the replacing of dark anchor at Oakland Commons increased 1.6% for the quarter and 1.8% for the full year of 2012. Layering in redevelopments, our same-property NOI increased 2.1% for the full year, reflecting the lease-up at our redevelopment properties, more specifically Trexlertown Plaza. Turning to the balance sheet. In the fourth quarter, we redeemed another $113 million of our 8.78% Series A preferred stock. This redemption was completed utilizing the proceeds from our Series B preferred stock issued late in the third quarter at a yield of 7.58%. Further subsequent to the end of the fourth quarter, we received a reverse inquiry on our Series B Preferred Stock and opportunistically used this enquiry as an anchor order to reopen our Series B and raise another $57 million…

Thank you. (Operator Instructions) Our first question comes from the line of Nathan Isbee with Stifel Nicolaus. Please proceed with your question. Nate Isbee – Stifel Nicolaus: Hi. Good evening. Just getting back to the SUPERVALU’s remaining in your portfolio. Can you talk a little bit about broken down by the different flags and brands what the grocery sales are in each of those?

Hi, Nate, it’s Nancy. Nate Isbee – Stifel Nicolaus: Hi.

The bulk of our SUPERVALU concentration is really within the Farm Fresh banner. And I think from a sales perspective it’s by far the strongest sales per square foot of everything that we have within SUPERVALU. So, I would probably say that that’s our strongest and then I would go to the Acmes located in the Philadelphia region, and then our Shaw’s locations, of course, you know we have two dark anchors there. Nate Isbee – Stifel Nicolaus: When you talk about the strongest, what are we talking about, are we talking about 400 to 500, 500 plus?

Yeah, I’d say probably the 400 to 500 is the area, we’re talking about. Nate Isbee – Stifel Nicolaus: Okay. And then with the RioCan ownership out of the way, have you had any other further discussions with other of the large owners that have made some signs over the last year that they might be interested in selling?

We track this the same way you do, Nate. So, the answer is no. Nate Isbee – Stifel Nicolaus: Okay. Thank you.

Sure.

(Operator Instructions) Our next question comes from the line of Craig Schmidt with Bank of America. Please proceed with your question. Craig Schmidt – Bank of America: Thank you. Thinking about the same property NOI of 1% to 2%, how much of that is coming from a lift in occupancy and how much is coming from leasing spreads?

Hey, Craig, it’s Phil. In the low end, we’re expecting occupancy to go up, approaching 1%. So, probably a little less than 1% would be due to occupancy gains, and the rest would be just leasing spreads and new leases. Craig Schmidt – Bank of America: Okay. And then, I guess, in terms of the leasing traction, would you say that leasing for the small shops is on par with 2012, stronger or weaker?

I would say that it’s stronger. We are definitely seeing an uptick in activity and what we are seeing is and this is partly due to taking a little bit of proactive approach, is we are paying attention to our restaurant uses. Last year, and in particular last quarter, I think our small shops were about 30%, represented by restaurant uses, we’re trending about 40%. There was a study that came out that talked about 41,000 small shop tenants expected to commit in 2013, 41% is supposed to be restaurant. And it’s an important fact because restaurant uses do, in fact, add a lot of traffic to a shopping center. And secondly, I think those users are insulated from e-commerce. So it’s a smart move to put our focus when we talk to our leasing folks out in seeking restaurant tenants in our portfolio, so that’s where we say we’re going. Craig Schmidt – Bank of America: Great. Thank you.

(Operator Instructions) Our final question today comes from the line of Todd Thomas with KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question. Todd Thomas – KeyBanc Capital Markets: Hi, thanks. Good afternoon. With regard to the two dark Shaw’s, can you just talk about the re-tenanting plans that you’re contemplating for those sites?

Todd, we can’t completely discuss them actually just because they’re somewhat active and we’re reluctant to get into it until things are finalized, but we are actively pursuing the re-tenanting of all of our dark anchors. There is obviously a timeline, so some of them will happen sooner than others, but again I’d be very reluctant to talk about it before it’s a little bit more firm. I think one of the things that as a relatively new management team and as a group here that we really endeavor to do is try to only commit to things that are pretty much in hand and I’d be reluctant to get too far over my skis on something that’s not yet completely resolved. So I would just tell you that you’d have to wait and see and hopefully we’ll have some good news on these and the other dark anchors over the next few months. Todd Thomas – KeyBanc Capital Markets: Okay. Understood. And then, with regard to the Acmes, you mentioned that you would be happy to get those back. I was wondering if you had a sense for where in-place rents on those leases are relative to market rents.

Well, so there are – we have three of them and they vary pretty dramatically in terms of the rent per square foot and therefore how they relate to their market rents. But I would say just broadly speaking – again, there’s really a wide variance. The average rent might be about $5, but there is probably $2.5 variance around that average. And I would say that if you look at that average, it’s probably half of the market today. Todd Thomas – KeyBanc Capital Markets: Okay. And then on the balance sheet, thinking about the preferreds, is there any more capacity under the preferred – the ATM that you have set up? I guess I am just wondering if we should expect to see any additional issuance under that agreement.

Well, so those are two different questions. I can tell you this is a technical matter. There is capacity and we do have, as a practical matter, a number of constraints, one of which is that we want to make sure that we leave a wide berth from a fixed charge coverage perspective in terms of utilizing our preferred to finance our business. So I would say that in terms of what you should expect, if we do use preferred, it will be for something that enhances our fixed charge coverage. So, in other words, it’d have to be an investment that has a fair amount of yield in it, so perhaps we might consider using that just – again, I’m throwing this out there – as an equity alternative to the extent our share price isn’t at the right place and we need to finance either an acquisition that’s particularly attractive or some type of high yielding capital expenditure. Todd Thomas – KeyBanc Capital Markets: Okay. And then just last question for Phil. In terms of the amortization of intangible lease liabilities, the non-cash rent, I think you said you’re expecting that to be lower for the full year by about $1 million. Was that correct?

Yeah, so it was about $5.5 million in 2012. It will be about $4.5 million in 2013. And actually we filed our K today also, Todd, if you go look, there is a footnote that shows out of all that that’s in place, it schedules the amortization out for the next five years and you can see what the schedule of amortization is for the next five years in there. Todd Thomas – KeyBanc Capital Markets: Right. Okay, great. Thank you.

There are no further questions at this time. I would like to turn the floor back over to Mr. Schanzer for closing comments.

Thank you, everyone, for joining us. Have a good evening.