CSR

LLM Evaluations

Transcript Summary

Centerspace reported Q1 2026 results featuring flat same-store revenue and a 1.1% decline in same-store NOI, largely driven by regulatory headwinds in Colorado and costs related to an ongoing strategic review. Despite these pressures, Core FFO of $1.12 per share met internal expectations, and management reiterated full-year 2026 guidance. A notable highlight was the acceleration of leasing spreads, which improved from January lows to 1.8% in April, led by strong performance in Minneapolis. The Denver market remains soft due to supply and new legislative impacts on utility reimbursements, though record absorption in the region suggests future stabilization. Expenses were slightly elevated due to timing and tax true-ups but are expected to normalize as the year progresses. Management highlighted strong retention rates of 54.1% across the portfolio and a healthy resident base with low bad debt. The strategic review process is ongoing, with a more detailed update expected by Q2. Centerspace continues to focus on its Midwest strategy, where muted supply and steady job growth in sectors like health care and government provide a buffer against more volatile Mountain West markets.

5-year share-count history (top 10 holders by peak, incl. exited) + price

Revenue Segments

Filing Risk Scores

Centerspace: Dividend Sustainability Strained by Widening Losses and Asset Impairments

Full Earnings Call Transcript — Q1 • 2026-05-05

Operator: Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining us, and welcome to the Centerspace Q1 2026 Earnings Call. [Operator Instructions] I will now hand the call over to Josh Klaetsch, Director of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.
Joshua Klaetsch: Thank you, and good morning, everyone. Centerspace's Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2026, was filed with the SEC yesterday after the market closed. Additionally, our earnings release and supplemental disclosure package have been posted to our website at centerspacehomes.com and filed on Form 8-K. It's important to note that today's remarks will include statements about our business outlook and other forward-looking statements that are based on management's current views and assumptions. These statements are subject to risks and uncertainties discussed in our filings under the section titled Risk Factors and in our other filings with the SEC. We cannot guarantee that any forward-looking statements will materialize, and you're cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. Please refer to our earnings release for reconciliations of any non-GAAP information which may be discussed on today's call. I'll now turn it over to Centerspace's President and CEO, Anne Olson, for the company's prepared remarks.
Anne Olson: Thank you, Josh, and good morning, everyone. I'm here with our SVP of Investments and Capital Markets, Grant Campbell; and our CFO, Bhairav Patel. I'll start by addressing the strategic review which we initiated in 2025. This process is ongoing, and we appreciate the feedback we have received from our stakeholders. The Board and its advisers continue to make progress, and we expect to provide shareholders with a more substantive update on the status of the review process before or in connection with our second quarter earnings release. There can be no assurance as to the timing or outcome of our process and no assurance that the review process will result in a transaction or other strategic change or outcome. We do not intend to provide further details in connection with discussion of our first quarter earnings results today. Thank you for your understanding as we keep our comments focused on our results and our outlook. Our revenues for Q1 were in line with our expectations, supported by stable demand and continued execution by our leasing teams. First quarter results reflect the negative impact of recent changes to Colorado regulations, timing of certain expenses and costs related to our strategic review. These were anticipated, and our expectations for full year core FFO and its drivers remain substantially unchanged. We are reiterating our previously released earnings guidance, and Bhairav will discuss this momentarily. Operationally, we are starting to see the expected seasonal pickup in leasing. While blended leasing spreads in the quarter were up 40 basis points over prior leases, each month demonstrated improvement, increasing from negative 90 basis points in January to positive 140 basis points in March. We've seen this trend continue into April with preliminary blended spreads of 1.8%. The Q1 blend was composed of a 2.1% decrease in new lease rents, combined with a 3.1% increase on renewals, while in April, new lease spreads broke into positive territory and renewal spreads increased to 3.3%. Retention of 54.1% in our same-store portfolio was a 2 percentage point improvement from the same quarter last year, and our resident base remains healthy, with rent-to-income levels at 21.2% and bad debt within our historical range. Our Midwest markets continue to see rent growth outpacing national averages, and our largest market of Minneapolis saw blended spreads of 1.3% in Q1. Notably, Minneapolis has shown the best acceleration into April with blended spreads of 3.8% and new lease spreads of 4.3% in the month. In Denver, Q1 blended rates were down 5.1%, and reimbursement revenues are exhibiting the impact of regulatory changes in the market. Concessions are prevalent in the market, and we experienced our highest usage of concessions to date in Q1. That said, we have reason for optimism. Q1 absorption levels were at their highest level since the pandemic rebound in 2021, and retention in our Denver communities was 51.9%, an improvement over Q1 2025. This data, together with the significant drop-off of new construction starts, sets us up for a better leasing profile as the year progresses, with improvement in both concessions and leasing spreads expected as we enter peak leasing season. Expenses in the quarter were higher than our historic trend or 2026 projected run rate. Much of this was related to timing, which Bhairav will elaborate on. Our team excels in expense management, as evidenced by our same-store expense growth of only 1.6% over 2024 and 2025, and we expect that discipline to show again in 2026 as the impacts of onetime expenses normalize. I would be remiss not to recognize our team. Their commitment and execution sets us apart, and we're proud that their efforts have been recognized through several awards, most recently being named a USA Today Top Workplace. I'm very grateful for our amazing team members. With that, I'll turn it over to Grant.
Grant Campbell: Thanks, Anne, and good morning, everyone. Nationwide transaction activity continued showing signs of improvement, including a 13% total volume increase in 2025 compared to 2024. At the same time, investors are becoming increasingly selective with their investment decisions. There is a wide variation across individual markets as it pertains to investor conviction and actions. Within our geographic footprint, this dynamic exists. In Minneapolis, 2025 was a record year for transactions at $2.5 billion in total volume. This is driven by supply peaking in 2023, and at the peak, new deliveries representing only 6% of then existing stock, comparing favorably to the profile of high supply markets. Coupling this with stable and persistent renter demand, investors have been drawn to the market, and we expect this to continue throughout 2026, in part due to next 12-month deliveries representing 1.6% of existing inventory and the full construction pipeline at 2.1% of inventory. In our other Midwest markets, we continue seeing strong interest from private capital investors. These markets are anchored by health care, education and government and have muted supply profiles, including next 12-month deliveries ranging from 0% in our North Dakota and Rochester, Minnesota markets to 2.4% of existing inventory in Omaha. While the labor market has slowed nationally, we are seeing healthier relative performance in these locations, including in Grand Forks, North Dakota, where the U.S. Space Force is expanding its presence and a new $450 million food processing facility is underway, along with Rochester, Minnesota, which saw strong job growth in 2025, driven by health care and education. Shifting to Denver. Transaction volume was down 41% in 2025 compared to 2024, and this has carried into 2026 thus far. The market continues working through the influx of deliveries from the past 24 months, flat job growth in 2025 and the recent legislative changes affecting property level other income. This has generally put Denver's transaction market in a wait-and-see environment. Premium assets and locations are still commanding strong pricing, including a few recent trades at sub 5% in-place cap rates, though the divide between premium profile and the rest of the market has widened. We believe this theme will continue until growth indicators translate into hard data, providing investors more conviction in underwriting strengthening fundamentals. Strong Q1 absorption numbers are one building block. Taken together, we think this environment reinforces our historical focus on disciplined capital allocation. We expect household formation in our portfolio to outpace national averages by 50 basis points through the end of next year and employment growth to similarly outpace the U.S. We believe this positioning will allow us to navigate the current environment while creating value over time. I'll now turn it over to Bhairav to discuss our financial results and guidance.
Bhairav Patel: Thanks, Grant, and hello, everyone. Last night, we reported first quarter core FFO of $1.12 per diluted share, driven by a 1.1% year-over-year decrease in Q1 same-store NOI. Revenues from same-store communities were flat compared to the same quarter in 2025, with a 1.7% increase to average monthly rental rate in the portfolio offset by a 40 basis point decrease to occupancy and the impact of lower RUBS revenue in our Colorado communities. On the same-store expense side, Q1 numbers were up 1.7% year-over-year, with controllable expenses up 3.5% and noncontrollables down 1.1%. Our G&A expenses increased by $1.3 million over the same quarter last year, with strategic review costs as the main driver of that increase. Turning to full year 2026 expectations. Our guidance is consistent with what we outlined in February with core FFO at $4.93, same-store NOI growth of 75 basis points, same-store revenue growth of 88 basis points and same-store expense growth of 1.5%, each at the midpoint of their guided range. Casualty recoveries in Q1 led us to increase our NAREIT FFO expectations for the year by $0.03 at the midpoint to $4.78 per share. Revenue growth assumes blended gross leasing spreads of approximately 2%, with occupancy in the mid-95% range and retention of about 52%. We continue to expect blended spreads will again be highest in our Midwest communities. That strength will bolster our Denver portfolio, where we expect spreads to be down for the year, though improving as the year progresses. As we have previously stated, regulatory changes are expected to temper revenue growth in our Colorado portfolio, with RUBS expected to be down nearly $1 million, which was already incorporated into our initial guidance. As Anne alluded to earlier, expenses in the first quarter were slightly higher than our expectations. However, part of that increase was driven by timing differences, especially on the noncontrollable side. We recorded approximately $400,000 in real estate tax true-ups during the quarter. True-ups are not uncommon during the first quarter, and we expect these to be offset when we resolve open appeals in the second half of this year. Our nonreimbursable losses during the quarter were also slightly higher than anticipated. This line item tends to be volatile, and our first quarter experience has not altered our expectations for the full year. Controllable expenses were impacted by a low team member open position count and the timing of R&M projects. We expect offsets to both will favorably impact the cost of these for the remainder of the year. Lastly, while G&A during the quarter was higher than the projected run rate for the rest of the year, we now expect full year G&A to be lower than our initial projection. As a result, we still expect to deliver financial performance within the initial guidance ranges we discussed at the beginning of the year. To further aid in modeling, I wanted to highlight our expectations for certain line items and related timing. Costs related to our strategic review are expected to be $1 million to $1.5 million for the year, with those costs expected to occur primarily in the first half of the year. This expense appears in both our G&A costs and has an add-back from FFO to core FFO. Amortization of assumed debt is expected to be $1.3 million for the year, with $490,000 expected in Q2 before quarterly amortization decreases to $215,000 per quarter in Q3 and Q4. Our guidance does not include any acquisitions or dispositions. Turning to our balance sheet. Q1 annualized debt-to-EBITDA was impacted by the higher G&A and taxes in the quarter, leading it to be atypically high. This is not indicative of any meaningful change to our leverage profile, and we expect this number to return to our historical mid-7x range as the year progresses and expenses normalize. Our debt schedule features both a compelling rate and a long tenure with a weighted average rate of 3.6% and weighted average maturity of 6.7 years, while our liquidity remains strong with $267 million of cash and line of credit availability compared to $98 million of debt maturing through 2027. To conclude, this quarter demonstrated the stability and consistency of our portfolio, with our results demonstrating our commitments to both operational excellence and financial discipline and positioning us well for the rest of 2026. Operator, please open the line for questions.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Brad Heffern of RBC.
Brad Heffern: On Minneapolis, it sounds like you're seeing a strong inflection in spreads there. Do you view that market as being sort of back to normal at this point after we've passed all the supply? And then do you expect to see it overshoot to the upside to some extent?
Anne Olson: Yes. I think you're exactly right, how we feel about it. We are certainly past the inflection point where the demand has stayed steady and the supply has been significantly absorbed and the new supply pipeline, as Grant discussed, is tapering to just over 2%. And so we're seeing really good rent increases there, and we think that, that will continue. We have no indicators that demand is softening here in Minneapolis. And the economy -- the regional economy here is healthy. So we do expect some outperformance from Minneapolis this year, particularly relative to our other markets.
Brad Heffern: Okay. Got it. And then, Bhairav, on the guidance, 1Q was at the bottom end of the revenue growth guidance range. The expenses in 1Q were close to the top end of the range. Obviously, you didn't change the guidance, but I'm curious if you can just walk through the path to both of those getting to their midpoints? Or do you expect that NOI maybe won't get to the midpoint, just based on where we are so far?
Bhairav Patel: Yes, let's go through the components. So revenue was still in line with our expectations. It was flat for the quarter, but we expected it. The increase in scheduled rent was offset by the loss of RUBS revenue in Colorado, and there was amortization and concessions that started in the second half of last year. But overall, revenue came in, in line with expectations, and April is shaping up also in line with expectations. We do expect that remains on track. On controllables, R&M was slightly higher in the first quarter. Some of that was timing, which will correct itself. And the remainder, we expect to offset with savings elsewhere. And we are fully staffed now, so we expect to be able to drive efficiencies as we enter leasing season by better managing overtime spend and third-party vendors. So we do expect that we'll kind of remain on track on controllables as well. With respect to noncontrollables, there were some tax true-ups in the first quarter. It's not unusual for us to see tax true-ups in the first quarter. We do expect some fuel savings to materialize in the second half of the year, so that should offset it. And also, as I said in my prepared remarks, there were some nonreimbursable losses, which again tend to be volatile. So we saw higher losses in the first quarter, which is not really indicative of the run rate going forward. So that should normalize as well. Lastly, there's G&A. That was also higher than the run rate. It was driven by some payroll tax accruals that are typically higher in the first quarter when we grant the equity awards. That should also normalize as we go through the rest of the year, and we actually did identify some additional savings. So overall, then you kind of combine all of these components, we expect to remain in line with the midpoint of our NOI as well as core FFO.
Operator: Your next question comes from Ami Probandt of UBS.
Ami Probandt: Just to dive in a little bit more on the markets. The other Mountain West markets are a relatively small part of the portfolio, but growth in the quarter was pretty soft. So I was wondering if you could talk through what's going on there?
Anne Olson: Yes, sure. So the other Mountain West consists of Rapid City and Billings. And those markets, if you recall, are acting a little bit more like a Denver. So they had enormous rent growth in '21, '22 into '23, but then they did get some supply. And so being smaller markets, they have been impacted a little bit by supply. That is tapering off. And as Grant noted, we see very little supply coming there. But that market really has had some equalization going on there as they work through that supply. And then also a little bit softer job picture there. Immediately post COVID, they had a pretty big influx of people working remotely, particularly in places like Rapid City. And so we've seen that pull back a little bit. The market is still strong, but we're not seeing the growth that we had been there. We've had a little bit of a pullback in those markets.
Ami Probandt: Got it. That makes sense. And then just on retention, this has been really strong, remains ahead of historical. I was just wondering if you think that retention might come down at all and to what extent it might come down as you change over to pushing a little bit more on rate as we move into the peak leasing season?
Anne Olson: Yes, this is a great question. I think the market has changed the last couple of years across the industry, we've really seen higher retention. So you're hearing that from all the multifamily peers. You're hearing that on the private side. Whether or not that there's some fundamental shift there, I think people are starting to lean into that, right? The renters are staying renters longer. The average age of a renter is increasing. And so I think there's a higher percentage of renters in the market, which is helping retention. Now as we look into this year, the one thing that we're really looking at is with a lot of absorption coming and a lot of absorption happening, there's actually going to be fewer choices for people to move to. And one of the things we noted is while retention was really strong in Q1, it actually jumped up pretty significantly in April. So I guess I'm -- my early leaning is that this is a little bit of a fundamental shift in the industry away from that 50% general retention rate into something a little bit higher.
Operator: [Operator Instructions] Your next question comes from the line of Jeffrey Carr of Cantor Fitzgerald.
Jeffrey Carr: Just wanted to ask about with the review ongoing and no acquisitions or dispositions in guidance, how are you thinking about capital allocation priorities for the rest of the year? And specifically maybe around the revolver balance and value-add spend? And how much does the review kind of influence those decisions, if at all?
Anne Olson: Yes, this is a great question. I think capital allocation is job #1 of an executive team, and particularly when you have hard assets. And we -- while we maintained our guidance on value-add for the year and we do think that, that's an important part of our program here and our operating platform, really, most of the value-add that we're spending is are things that were started or identified last year. So as we think about capital allocation priorities going forward, we're very focused on managing the line of credit debt and keeping our balance sheet strong and flexible.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Mason Guell of Baird.
Mason P. Guell: Has there been any change to the outlook for any of your markets this year? And are any doing better or maybe worse than expected?
Anne Olson: Well, as Bhairav said, we really expect revenue is coming in line with expectations, and that's unchanged for the year. I think maybe the components are moving a little bit. We'd like to see Denver picking up a little bit faster, but -- and they had awesome absorption in Q1, as we discussed in the prepared remarks. And if that continues, we're going to be right in line there. Minneapolis is a little bit better than we expected, but these are all very slight offsets. And overall, I think revenue is coming in right where we thought, and we expect that to continue for the year.
Mason P. Guell: Great. And then could you provide some color on the real estate investment impairment line item on your income statement?
Bhairav Patel: Yes, we can go through the impairment. So overall, from a GAAP standpoint, you typically book impairment when your -- on real assets when your cash flows are going to be less than your book value. Now from real assets, you don't typically tend to see it because they have long holding periods. So you usually see impairments when we have assets that are held for sale. But with the ongoing strategic review, the considerations change a little bit, and we have to kind of tweak the holding period for certain assets, which resulted in the impairment that we booked in the first quarter. It was truly driven by a change in the potential holding period in light of all the other activity that's being reviewed at the strategic level. So that's really what drove the impairment. It was on one asset and was driven by property-specific factors.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Michael Gorman of BTIG.
Michael Gorman: Maybe just a quick one for me on a more strategic level as you're thinking about the portfolio and you're thinking about the business. Obviously, Denver, I think, has been a challenge, and that's not unique to you at all. There was an article in The Wall Street Journal over the weekend talking about the regulatory environment for business in general in the state of Colorado and some increasing concerns about the regulatory burden among the tech ecosystem. And I'm just wondering, have you started to see any of those concerns? Have you started to think about those concerns and what that means for the job market in those kind of core metro areas in Colorado? Or is this just a little bit too far out on the horizon?
Anne Olson: Michael, this isn't too far out on the horizon, and it is something that we're thinking about. As we consider -- you may recall when we -- before we bought in Salt Lake City, one of the things that we really look at with respect to markets is the business climate, right, the friendliness, the tax regime, the regulatory environment. In Colorado, you can even see -- and we discussed in our prepared remarks -- you can start seeing the results of some of the regulatory actions that they have taken with respect to real estate, the RUBS, the collection, our ability to get reimbursement for RUBS and utility costs. So we're already starting to see that there. And I do think that some of the other regulatory actions that they're considering or considering taking are impacting their job growth. As Grant noted, it's been flat there after a few years of really, really strong growth. So is this part of the natural kind of maturing of Denver, which went from 1 million people to close to 4 million people in a relatively short span of time? A lot of jobs came there. Did the infrastructure not keep up? Do they feel pressure to put these regulations in place? Will that abate over time? I think that remains to be seen. We're really happy with the portfolio we have there. We're very happy with the basis we have in it, having started to acquire that portfolio back in 2017. And we're optimistic because it's still a place that has a lot of cultural gravitas. People are still wanting to live there for access to the outdoor amenities and things that other cities can't offer. And on a relative basis to places like California, it is still very affordable. So -- but definitely something that we're watching, something we're already starting to feel the impacts of and really keeping a close eye on.
Michael Gorman: That's really helpful color. And maybe just a follow-up. I just wanted to make sure I had it clear. It sounds like, to your point, job growth is a little bit slower in Denver, but it sounds like absorption is running at pretty high levels. So I'm just wondering, kind of what could be driving that mismatch and how durable that can -- that absorption level do you think can be with the current level of job growth?
Grant Campbell: Yes. Mike, correct. Q1 absorption numbers were very strong, peak data, looking back to the pandemic period. So we continue to see strong inflows of resident and renter demand in the market. I think a big driver there is the high cost of homeownership in that market. And although job growth has been flat in 2025, as we talked about, we do continue to still see folks from out of state relocating to the market, maybe not at the same clip that they were from '21 to '23. We actually looked within our portfolio, '21 to '23, about 1/3 of our applicants within our same-store portfolio were from out of state. And in '24 and '25, that was 25%. So a reduction, but still a meaningful inflow of folks coming from out of state, and it is very expensive to own a home in that market.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Ami Probandt of UBS.
Ami Probandt: Maybe a follow-up to Mike's question that was just asked. There's maybe some bias for some coastal -- at least coastal people about what your Midwest markets might look like. And so I'm just kind of curious, what's the hiring outlook for recent college grads across your market? Do college grads, are they attractive to these markets? Or do they tend to go to some of the bigger Sunbelt markets or coastal markets and then move into the Midwest as they get a little bit older and want to start a family?
Anne Olson: Yes. Ami, this is a good question. And there -- as you probably know, there has been some recent publication highlighting where the hot markets for new college grads are. Very few of them are in the Midwest, but we still do see really strong companies in our markets and across the Midwest. And so Minneapolis, we have Target, 3M, huge health care in UnitedHealthcare and all the subsidiaries, Cargill, which is one of the largest private companies in the world. And then on the North Dakota side, Grant mentioned, we're starting to see some growth there. And Grant, maybe you can just comment a little bit on what we're seeing in some of those markets with respect to job growth that would attract some of those new college grads?
Grant Campbell: Yes. I think to Anne's comments on Minneapolis, 17 Fortune 500 companies, Cargill, largest private company that there is. We see a lot of folks that -- maybe Chicago used to be the place, if they were Midwest-centric, it was Chicago, or we're going coastal. We see more and more of those folks coming to the Twin Cities. A strong underlying higher education system in the Twin Cities also serves as a feeder for a lot of those organizations and companies in our backyard. In the case of our other Midwest markets that you alluded to, Rochester, the Mayo Clinic is undertaking a very significant expansion phase that is drawing a lot of folks. So that market driven by health care and education, we're seeing it play out on the ground. In our prepared remarks, we alluded to North Dakota, where we're seeing some pretty significant investment, both from folks in state as well as other folks, in this case, a European company desiring to put their first U.S. plant in that market. So I think these things, although maybe they don't register at the same level as some of the coastal updates that we hear about, the wheel is turning in these markets.
Anne Olson: And Ami, just one more thought on that is when I look at recent data and recent news articles about it, it does -- there is a big highlight there, which is the new college grads aren't just looking for coastal markets and jobs. They're also balancing that with overall affordability, and that's where the Midwest can be a real draw. And over the past few years, we've seen markets like -- not just Minneapolis, but Milwaukee, Columbus, Kansas City really get an outsized share of those grads given the affordability of living there.
Operator: There are are no further questions at this time.
Anne Olson: Great. Well, thank you all for joining us today. We look forward to meeting with many of you at the upcoming BMO and NAREIT conferences, and we wish you all a great day.
Operator: This concludes today's call. Thank you for attending. You may now disconnect.