UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
_____________________________
FORM 10-K
þ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013
OR
o TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Commission file number 001-32514
DIAMONDROCK HOSPITALITY COMPANY
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
Maryland | 20-1180098 | |
(State of Incorporation) | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) | |
3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 1500, Bethesda, Maryland | 20814 | |
(Address of Principal Executive Offices) | (Zip Code) | |
(240) 744-1150
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of Each Class | Name of Exchange on Which Registered |
Common Stock, $.01 par value | New York Stock Exchange |
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. þ Yes o No
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. o Yes þ No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. þ Yes o No
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). þ Yes o No
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. þ
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large accelerated filer þ | Accelerated filer o | Non-accelerated filer o | Smaller reporting company o | |||
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) | ||||||
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). o Yes þ No
The aggregate market value of the common equity held by non-affiliates of the Registrant (assuming for these purposes, but without conceding, that all executive officers and Directors are “affiliates” of the Registrant) as of June 30, 2013, the last business day of the Registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was $1.8 billion (based on the closing sale price of the Registrant's Common Stock on that date as reported on the New York Stock Exchange).
The registrant had 195,470,791 shares of its $0.01 par value common stock outstanding as of February 25, 2014.
Documents Incorporated by Reference
Portions of the registrant's Proxy Statement for its 2014 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after December 31, 2013, are incorporated by reference in Part III herein.
Table of Contents
INDEX
Page No. | |
-3-
SPECIAL NOTE ABOUT FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
Certain statements in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, other than purely historical information, including estimates, projections, statements relating to our business plans, objectives and expected operating results, and the assumptions upon which those statements are based, are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. These forward-looking statements generally are identified by the words “believes,” “project,” “expects,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” “intends,” “strategy,” “plan,” “may,” “will,” “would,” “will be,” “will continue,” “will likely result,” “strive,” “endeavor,” “mission,” “goal,” and similar expressions. Forward-looking statements are based on current expectations and assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties which may cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements. A discussion of these and other risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and events to differ materially from such forward-looking statements is included in Item 1A “Risk Factors” and Item 7 “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K. Except as required by law, we undertake no obligation to update or revise publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
References in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to “we,” “our,” “us” and “the Company” refer to DiamondRock Hospitality Company, including as the context requires, DiamondRock Hospitality Limited Partnership, as well as our other direct and indirect subsidiaries.
PART I
Item 1. Business
Overview
DiamondRock Hospitality Company is a lodging-focused Maryland corporation operating as a real estate investment trust (REIT) for federal income tax purposes. As of December 31, 2013, we owned a portfolio of 26 premium hotels and resorts that contain 11,121 guest rooms. We also hold the senior note on a mortgage loan secured by an additional hotel and have the right to acquire, upon completion, a hotel under development. As an owner, rather than an operator, of lodging properties, we receive all of the operating profits or losses generated by our hotels after the payment of fees due to hotel managers, which are calculated based on the revenues and profitability of each hotel.
Our vision is to be the premier allocator of capital in the lodging industry. Our mission is to deliver above average long-term stockholder returns through a combination of dividends and capital appreciation. Our strategy is to utilize disciplined capital allocation and focus on the acquisition, ownership and innovative asset management of high quality lodging properties in North American markets with superior growth prospects and high barriers to entry.
We differentiate ourselves from our competitors by adhering to three basic principles in executing our strategy:
• | owning high-quality urban and destination resort hotels; |
• | implementing innovative asset management strategies; and |
• | maintaining a conservative capital structure. |
Our portfolio is concentrated in key gateway cities and destination resort locations. Each of our hotels is managed by a third party and most are operated under a brand owned by one of the leading global lodging brand companies (Marriott International, Inc. (“Marriott”), Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. (“Starwood”) and Hilton Worldwide (“Hilton”)).
We critically evaluate each of our hotels to ensure that we own a portfolio of hotels that conforms to our vision, supports our mission and corresponds with our strategy. On a regular basis, we analyze our portfolio to identify opportunities to invest capital in certain projects or market non-core assets for sale in order to increase our portfolio quality.
We are committed to a conservative capital structure with prudent leverage. We regularly assess the availability and affordability of capital in order to maximize the stockholder value and minimize enterprise risk. In addition, we are committed to following sound corporate governance practices and being open and transparent in our communications with stockholders.
-4-
High Quality Urban and Destination Resort Hotels
As of December 31, 2013, we owned 26 premium hotels and resorts throughout North America and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Our hotels and resorts are primarily categorized as upper upscale as defined by Smith Travel Research and are generally located in high barrier-to-entry markets with multiple demand generators.
Our properties are concentrated in key gateway cities (primarily New York City, Chicago, Boston and Los Angeles) and in destination resort locations (such as the U.S. Virgin Islands and Vail, Colorado). We consider lodging properties located in gateway cities and resort destinations to be the most capable of creating dynamic cash flow growth and achieving superior long-term capital appreciation. We also believe that these locations are better insulated from new supply due to relatively high barriers-to-entry, including expensive construction costs and limited development sites.
We have been executing on our strategy to elevate and enhance our hotel portfolio by actively recycling capital early in the recovery phase of this lodging cycle. Our efforts have led to the repositioning of our portfolio through the acquisition of $1.3 billion of urban hotels that align with our strategic goals while disposing of more than $375 million in slower-growth, non-core hotels. These acquisitions increased our urban exposure with additional hotels in cities such as New York, San Francisco, Boston, Denver, Washington D.C. and San Diego. As a result, over 85% of our portfolio EBITDA is currently derived from core urban and resort hotels. Our capital recycling program over the past three years also achieved several other important strategic portfolio goals that include improving our portfolio’s geographic and brand diversity and achieving a mix of 50 percent brand-managed and 50 percent third-party managed hotels in our portfolio.
Moreover, the primary focus of our acquisitions over the past three years was on hotels that we believe presented unique value-add opportunities, such as repositioning through a change in brand or comprehensive renovation or changing the third-party hotel manager to a more efficient operator. For example, we executed a $140 million capital expenditure program in 2013, which included major capital investments at the Lexington Hotel New York, Courtyard Manhattan/Fifth Avenue, Courtyard Manhattan/Midtown East, Westin Washington D.C. City Center, Westin San Diego, Hilton Boston Downtown, and Hilton Minneapolis.
We leverage some of the leading global hotel brands with all but two of our hotels flagged under a brand owned by Marriott, Hilton or Starwood. We believe that premier global hotel brands create significant value as a result of each brand's ability to produce incremental revenue through their strong reservation and rewards systems and sales organizations with the result being that branded hotels are able to generate greater profits than similar unbranded hotels. We are primarily interested in owning hotels that are currently operated under, or can be converted to, a globally-recognized brand. We would also consider opportunities to acquire other non-branded hotels located in premier or unique markets where we believe that the returns on such a hotel may be higher than if the hotel were operated under a globally-recognized brand.
Innovative Asset Management
We believe we can create significant value in our portfolio through innovative asset management strategies such as rebranding, renovating and repositioning our hotels. We engage in a process of regular evaluations of the hotels in our portfolio in order to determine if there are opportunities to employ these value-add strategies.
We realized numerous asset management achievements in 2013, including: the execution of a $140 million capital expenditure program; the implementation of asset management strategies in order to improve hotel revenues and contain costs; and proactively managing the third-party managers at each of our properties to maximize hotel operating performance. Our asset management team is focused on improving hotel profit margins through revenue management strategies and cost control programs. Our asset management team also focuses on identifying new and potential value creation opportunities across our portfolio, including adding new resort fees, creating incremental guest rooms, leasing out restaurants to more profitable third party operators, converting unused space to revenue-generating meeting space, and implementing programs to reduce energy usage.
Our senior management team has established a broad network of hotel industry contacts and relationships, including relationships with hotel owners, financiers, operators, project managers and contractors and other key industry participants. We use our broad network of hotel industry contacts and relationships to maximize the value of our hotels. Under the federal income tax rules governing REITs, we are required to engage a hotel manager that is an eligible independent contractor to manage each of our hotels pursuant to a management agreement with one of our subsidiaries. We strive to negotiate management agreements that give us the right to exert influence over the management of our properties, annual budgets and all capital expenditures (all, to the extent permitted under the REIT rules), and then to use those rights to continually monitor and improve the performance of our properties. We cooperatively partner with our hotel managers in an attempt to increase operating results and long-term asset values at our hotels. In addition to working directly with the personnel at our hotels, our senior management team also has long-st
-5-
anding professional relationships with our hotel managers' senior executives, and we work directly with these senior executives to improve the performance of the hotels in our portfolio that they manage.
Conservative Capital Structure
We believe that a conservative capital structure maximizes investment capacity while reducing enterprise risk. We currently employ a low-risk and straight-forward capital structure with no corporate level debt, preferred equity, or convertible bonds. Moreover, we have significant balance sheet flexibility with no outstanding borrowings under our $200 million senior unsecured credit facility as of December 31, 2013, as well as approximately half of our hotels being unencumbered by mortgage debt. We believe it is imprudent to increase the inherent risk of highly cyclical lodging fundamentals through the use of a highly leveraged capital structure.
We believe our strategically designed capital structure is a value creation tool that can be used over the entire lodging cycle. Specifically, we believe lower leverage benefits us in the following ways:
• | provides capacity to fund attractive early-cycle acquisitions; |
• | provides optionality to fund acquisitions with the most efficient funding source; |
• | enhances our ability to maintain a sustainable dividend; |
• | enables us to opportunistically repurchase shares during periods of stock price dislocation; and |
• | provides capacity to fund late-cycle capital needs. |
Our current debt outstanding consists primarily of fixed interest rate mortgage debt. We have no outstanding borrowings under our senior unsecured credit facility, which bears interest at what we believe is an attractive floating rate. We prefer that a significant portion of our portfolio remains unencumbered by debt in order to provide maximum balance sheet flexibility. In addition, to the extent that we incur additional debt, our preference is non-recourse secured mortgage debt. We expect that our strategy will enable us to maintain a balance sheet with an appropriate amount of debt throughout all phases of the lodging cycle.
We have mortgage debt maturities that start in late 2014, with significant maturities in 2015 (approximately $230 million) and 2016 (approximately $305 million). We anticipate addressing these maturities, as well as other capital needs, with a combination of the following:
• | refinancing proceeds on existing encumbered hotels; |
• | borrowing capacity on our existing unencumbered hotels; |
• | proceeds from the disposition of non-core hotels; |
• | capacity under our $200 million senior unsecured credit facility; and |
• | annual cash flow from operations. |
We prefer a relatively simple but efficient capital structure. We have not invested in joint ventures and have not issued any operating partnership units or preferred stock. We structure our hotel acquisitions to be straightforward and fit within our conservative capital structure; however, we will consider a more complex transaction if we believe that the projected returns to our stockholders will significantly exceed the returns that would otherwise be available.
Our Company
We commenced operations in July 2004 and became a public reporting company in May 2005. We have been successful in acquiring, financing and asset managing our hotels, and complying with the complex public company accounting and legal requirements with 22 employees. Since our formation, we have sought to be forthright and transparent in our communications with investors, to actively monitor our corporate overhead and to adopt sound corporate governance practices. We believe that we have among the most transparent disclosures in the industry and we consistently go beyond the minimum legal requirements and industry practice; for example, we provide quarterly operating performance data on each of our hotels, enabling our investors to effectively evaluate our successes and challenges. Finally, we consider our corporate governance practices to be sound in that we
-6-
have a majority-independent Board of Directors elected annually by our stockholders and our officers and directors are subject to stock ownership policies designed to insure that these persons own a meaningful amount of stock in the Company.
As of December 31, 2013, we owned 26 hotels that contain 11,121 hotel rooms, located in 19 different markets in North America and the U.S. Virgin Islands. We also own a senior mortgage loan secured by a 443-room hotel located in Chicago, Illinois and have the right to acquire, upon completion, which is expected during 2014, a 282-room hotel under development in New York City.
Our Corporate Structure
We conduct our business through a traditional umbrella partnership REIT, or UPREIT, in which our hotels are owned by subsidiaries of our operating partnership, DiamondRock Hospitality Limited Partnership. We are the sole general partner of our operating partnership and currently own, either directly or indirectly, all of the limited partnership units of our operating partnership. We have the ability to issue limited partnership units to third parties in connection with acquisitions of hotel properties. In order for the income from our hotel investments to constitute “rents from real property” for purposes of the gross income tests required for REIT qualification, we must lease each of our hotels to a wholly-owned subsidiary of our taxable REIT subsidiary, or TRS (each, a TRS lessee), or to an unrelated third party. We currently lease all of our domestic hotels to TRS lessees. In turn, our TRS lessees must engage a third-party management company to manage the hotels. However, we may structure our properties that are not subject to U.S. federal income tax differently from the structures we use for our U.S. properties. For example, Frenchman's Reef is held by a U.S. Virgin Islands corporation, which we have elected to be a TRS.
The following chart shows our corporate structure as of the date of this report:
Environmental Matters
In connection with the ownership of hotels, the Company is subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations relating to environmental protection. Under these laws, a current or previous owner or operator (including tenants) of real estate may be liable for the costs or removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances at, on, under or in such property. These laws typically impose liability without regard to fault or whether or not the owner or operator knew of or caused the presence of the contamination and the liability under these laws may be joint and several. Because these laws also impose liability on the persons who owned the property at the time it became contaminated, it is possible we could incur cleanup costs or
-7-
other environmental liabilities even after we sell properties. The presence of contamination, or the failure to properly remediate contamination, on a property may adversely affect the ability of the owner or operator to sell that property or to borrow funds using such property as collateral. Under the environmental laws, courts and government agencies also have the authority to require that a person who sent waste to a waste disposal facility, such as a landfill or incinerator, pay for the cleanup of that facility if it becomes contaminated and threatens human health or the environment.
Our hotels are subject to various federal, state, and local environmental, health and safety laws and regulations that address a wide variety of issues, including, but not limited to, storage tanks, air emissions from emergency generators, storm water and wastewater discharges, asbestos, lead-based paint, mold and mildew and waste management. Our hotels incur costs to comply with these laws and regulations and could be subject to fines and penalties for non-compliance.
Furthermore, various court decisions have established that third parties may recover damages for injury caused by property contamination. For instance, a person exposed to asbestos while staying in a hotel may seek to recover damages if he or she suffers injury from the asbestos. Lastly, some of these environmental laws restrict the use of a property or place conditions on various activities. An example would be laws that require a business using chemicals (such as swimming pool chemicals at a hotel property) to manage them carefully and to notify local officials that the chemicals are being used.
Prior to closing any property acquisition, we obtain Phase I environmental assessments in order to attempt to identify potential environmental concerns at the properties. These assessments are carried out in accordance with an appropriate level of due diligence and generally include a physical site inspection, a review of relevant federal, state and local environmental and health agency database records, one or more interviews with appropriate site-related personnel, review of the property's chain of title and review of historic aerial photographs and other information regarding past uses of the property. These assessments generally do not include soil sampling, subservice investigations, comprehensive asbestos surveys or mold investigations. We cannot be assured that these assessments will discover every environmental condition that may be present on a property. Material environmental condition, liabilities or compliance concerns may have arisen after the review was completed or may arise in the future; and future laws, ordinances or regulations may impose material additional environmental liability.
We believe that our hotels are in compliance, in all material respects, with all federal, state and local environmental ordinances and regulations regarding hazardous or toxic substances and other environmental matters, the violation of which could have a material adverse effect on us. We have not received written notice from any governmental authority of any material noncompliance, liability or claim relating to hazardous or toxic substances or other environmental matters in connection with any of our present properties.
During 2012, we commissioned the preparation of the Company's first bi-annual Environmental, Social and Governance Report (the “Sustainability Report”) to comprehensively analyze sustainability performance indicators (including energy, water, waste, and greenhouse gas emissions) captured during 2011. The Sustainability Report highlights the Company's dedication to sustainability initiatives and stockholder returns through the implementation of programs designed to reduce energy consumption and increase profitability at our hotels. A copy of the Sustainability Report can be found on the Company's website at www.drhc.com in the Investor Relations section. We anticipate issuing our next Sustainability Report in 2014. The information included in, referenced to, or otherwise accessible through the Sustainability Report or our website, is not incorporated by reference in, or considered to be a part of, this report or any document unless expressly incorporated by reference therein.
Competition
The hotel industry is highly competitive and our hotels are subject to competition from other hotels for guests. Competition is based on a number of factors, including convenience of location, brand affiliation, price, range of services, guest amenities, and quality of customer service. Competition is specific to the individual markets in which our properties are located and will include competition from existing and new hotels operated under brands in the full-service, select-service and extended-stay segments. We believe that properties flagged with a Marriott, Starwood or Hilton brand will enjoy the competitive advantages associated with their operations under such brand. These global brands' reservation systems and national advertising, marketing and promotional services combined with the strong management expertise they provide enable our properties to perform favorably in terms of both occupancy and room rates relative to other brands and non-branded hotels. The guest loyalty programs operated by these global brands generate repeat guest business that might otherwise go to competing hotels. Increased competition may have a material adverse effect on occupancy, Average Daily Rate (or ADR) and Revenue per Available Room (or RevPAR), or may require us to make capital improvements that we otherwise would not undertake, which may result in decreases in the profitability of our hotels.
We face competition for the acquisition of hotels from institutional pension funds, private equity funds, REITs, hotel companies and others who are engaged in hotel acquisitions and investments. Some of these competitors have substantially greater
-8-
financial and operational resources than we have and may have greater knowledge of the markets in which we seek to invest. This competition may reduce the number of suitable investment opportunities offered to us and increase the cost of acquiring our targeted hotel investments.
Employees
As of December 31, 2013, we employed 22 full-time employees. We believe that our relations with our employees are good. None of our employees is a member of any union; however, the employees of our hotel managers at the Lexington Hotel New York, Courtyard Manhattan/Fifth Avenue, Frenchman's Reef & Morning Star Marriott Beach Resort, Westin Boston Waterfront Hotel, Hilton Boston Downtown and Hilton Minneapolis are currently represented by labor unions and are subject to collective bargaining agreements.
ADA Regulation
Our properties must comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or ADA, to the extent that such properties are "public accommodations" as defined by the ADA. The ADA may require removal of architectural barriers to access by individuals with disabilities in areas of our properties. We believe that our properties are in substantial compliance with the ADA. However, noncompliance with the ADA could result in payment of civil penalties, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. The obligation to comply with the ADA is an ongoing one, and we will continue to assess our properties and to make alterations as appropriate in this regard.
Insurance
We carry comprehensive liability, fire, extended coverage, earthquake, business interruption and rental loss insurance covering all of the properties in our portfolio under a blanket policy. In addition, we carry earthquake and terrorism insurance on our properties in an amount and with deductibles which we believe are commercially reasonable. We do not carry insurance for generally uninsured losses such as loss from riots, war or acts of God. Certain of the properties in our portfolio are located in areas known to be seismically active or subject to hurricanes and we believe we have appropriate insurance for those risks, although they are subject to higher deductibles than ordinary property insurance.
Most of our hotel management agreements and mortgage agreements provide that we are responsible for obtaining and maintaining property insurance, business interruption insurance, flood insurance, earthquake insurance (if the hotel is located in an "earthquake prone zone" as determined by the U.S. Geological Survey) and other customary types of insurance related to hotels and the hotel manager is responsible for obtaining general liability insurance, workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance.
Available Information
We maintain a website at the following address: www.drhc.com. We make our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), available on our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after such reports and amendments are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Such reports are also available by accessing the EDGAR database on the SEC's website at www.sec.gov.
Our website is also a key source of important information about us. We post to the Investor Relations section of our website important information about our business, our operating results and our financial condition and prospects, including, for example, information about material acquisitions and dispositions, our earnings releases and certain supplemental financial information related or complimentary thereto. The website also has a Corporate Governance page that includes, among other things, copies of our charter, our bylaws, our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and the charters for each standing committee of our Board of Directors: currently, the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. We intend to disclose on our website any amendment to, or waiver of, any provisions of our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that apply to any of our directors, executive officers or senior financial officers that would otherwise be required to be disclosed under the rules of the SEC or New York Stock Exchange (the "NYSE"). Copies of our charter, our bylaws, our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and the Company's SEC reports are also available in print to stockholders upon request addressed to Investor Relations, DiamondRock Hospitality Company, 3 Bethesda Metro Center, Suite 1500, Bethesda, Maryland 20814 or through the “Information Request” section on the Investor Relations page of our website.
The information included in, referenced to, or otherwise accessible through our website, is not incorporated by reference in, or considered to be a part of, this report or any document unless expressly incorporated by reference therein.
-9-
DiamondRock Hospitality Company is traded on the NYSE, under the symbol “DRH”.
Item 1A. Risk Factors
The following risk factors and other information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K should be carefully considered. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones that we face. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we may currently deem immaterial also may impair our business operations. If any of the following risks occur, our business, financial condition, operating results and cash flows could be adversely affected.
Risks Related to Our Business and Operations
Our business model, especially our concentration in premium full-service hotels, can be highly volatile.
We own hotels, a very different asset class from many other REITs. A typical office REIT, for example, has long-term leases with third party tenants, which provide a relatively stable long-term stream of revenue. Our TRS, on the other hand, does not enter into a lease with a hotel manager. Instead, our TRS engages the hotel manager pursuant to a management agreement and pays the manager a fee for managing the hotel. The TRS receives all the operating profit or losses at the hotel. Moreover, virtually all hotel guests stay at the hotel for only a few nights, so the rate and occupancy at each of our hotels changes every day. As a result, our earnings may be highly volatile.
In addition to fluctuations related to our business model, our hotels are and will continue to be subject to various long-term operating risks common to the hotel industry, many of which are beyond our control, including:
• | dependence on business and commercial travelers and tourism, both of which vary with consumer and business confidence in the strength of the economy; |
• | competition from other hotels located in the markets in which we own properties; |
• | an over-supply or over-building of hotels in the markets in which we own properties which could adversely affect occupancy rates, revenues and profits at our hotels; |
• | increases in energy and transportation costs and other expenses affecting travel, which may affect travel patterns and reduce the number of business and commercial travelers and tourists; |
• | increases in operating costs due to inflation and other factors that may not be offset by increased room rates; and |
• | changes in governmental laws and regulations, fiscal policies and zoning ordinances and the related costs of compliance. |
In addition, our hotels are mostly in the premium full-service segment of the hotel business, which, historically, tends to have the strongest operating results in a growing economy and the weakest results in a contracting or slow growth economy when many travelers might curtail travel or choose lower cost hotels. In periods of weak demand, profitability is negatively affected by the relatively high fixed costs of operating premium full-service hotels as compared to other classes of hotels.
The occurrence of any of the foregoing factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
Our portfolio is highly concentrated in a handful of core markets.
During 2013, approximately 64% of our income from continuing operations were derived from our hotels in five major cities (New York City, Boston, Chicago, Denver, and Los Angeles) and three destination resorts (Frenchman's Reef, Vail Marriott, and the Lodge at Sonoma). As such, the operations of these hotels - particularly the operations of our New York City properties - will have a material impact on our overall results of operations. This concentration in our portfolio exposes our business to economic conditions unique to these markets and may result in increased volatility in our results of operations. If lodging fundamentals in any of these cities are poor compared to the United States as a whole, the popularity of any of these destination resorts decreases, or a manmade or natural disaster or casualty or other damage occurs in any of these areas, our overall results of operations may be adversely affected.
Some of our hotels rely heavily on group contract business, and the loss of such business could harm our operating results.
-10-
Certain of our hotels rely heavily on group contract business and room nights generated by large corporate clients. The existence or non-existence of such business can significantly impact the results of operations of our hotels. Group contract business fluctuates from year-to-year and across markets. The scheduling and impact of events and activities that attract this business to hotels are not always easy to predict. As a result, the operating results for certain hotels may fluctuate as a result of these factors, possibly in adverse ways, and these fluctuations can affect our overall operating results.
Economic conditions may adversely affect the lodging industry.
Our entire business is related to the lodging industry. The performance of the lodging industry has historically been linked to key macroeconomic indicators, such as U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, growth, employment, corporate earnings and investment, and travel demand. A substantial part of our business strategy is based on the belief that the lodging markets in which we own properties will continue to experience improving economic fundamentals in the future. However, in the event conditions in the industry do not continue to improve as we expect, or deteriorate, or there is an extended period of economic weakness, our occupancy rates, revenues and profitability could be adversely affected. Furthermore, other macroeconomic factors may have a negative effect on the lodging industry and adversely impact our revenues and profitability.
Our hotels are subject to significant competition.
Currently, the markets where our hotels are located are very competitive. However, a material increase in the supply of new hotel rooms to a market can quickly destabilize that market and existing hotels can experience rapidly decreasing RevPAR and profitability. If such over-building occurs in one or more of our major markets, we may experience a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
In particular, over 9,000 rooms are expected to be added to the Manhattan hotel market by the end of 2015, increasing the existing supply by over 10%. Although much of the anticipated increase in supply is not expected to be located in the specific sub-markets of Manhattan where we currently own hotels, the operating performance of our Manhattan hotels may be impacted by the addition of this new supply.
Additionally, over 1,500 new hotel rooms are anticipated to open in downtown Chicago before the end of 2015, representing a supply increase of approximately 4% in the downtown Chicago market. An increase in the number of rooms available in the downtown Chicago market could negatively impact the operating performance of our downtown Chicago hotels. In addition, Marriott has signed an agreement to manage the 1,200-room Chicago Marriott Marquis, to be built next to the McCormick Place Convention Center. The hotel, which is expected to open in 2017, could have a material impact on the operations of our Chicago Marriott.
Investments in hotels are illiquid and we may not be able to respond in a timely fashion to adverse changes in the performance of our properties.
Because real estate investments are relatively illiquid, our ability to promptly sell one or more hotel properties or investments in our portfolio in response to changing economic, financial and investment conditions may be limited. The real estate market is affected by many factors that are beyond our control, including:
• | adverse changes in international, national, regional and local economic and market conditions; |
• | changes in supply of competitive hotels; |
• | changes in interest rates and in the availability, cost and terms of debt financing; |
• | changes in governmental laws and regulations, fiscal policies and zoning ordinances and the related costs of compliance with laws and regulations, fiscal policies and ordinances; |
• | the ongoing need for capital improvements, particularly in older structures; |
• | changes in operating expenses; and |
• | civil unrest, acts of God, including earthquakes, floods, hurricanes and other natural disasters and acts of war or terrorism, including the consequences of terrorist acts such as those that occurred on September 11, 2001, which may result in uninsured losses. |
-11-
It may be in the best interest of our stockholders to sell one or more of our hotels in the future. We cannot predict whether we will be able to sell any hotel property or investment at an acceptable price or otherwise on reasonable terms and conditions. We also cannot predict the length of time that will be necessary to find a willing purchaser and to close the sale of a hotel property or loan.
These facts and any others that would impede our ability to respond to adverse changes in the performance of our hotel properties could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition, as well as our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
We are subject to risks associated with our ongoing need for renovations and capital improvements as well as financing for such expenditures.
In order to remain competitive, our hotels have an ongoing need for renovations and other capital improvements, including replacements, from time to time, of furniture, fixtures and equipment. These capital improvements may give rise to the following risks:
•construction cost overruns and delays;
• | a possible shortage of available cash to fund capital improvements and the related possibility that financing for these capital improvements may not be available to us on affordable terms; |
• | the renovation investment failing to produce the returns on investment that we expect; |
• | disruptions in the operations of the hotel as well as in demand for the hotel while capital improvements are underway; and |
•disputes with franchisors/hotel managers regarding compliance with relevant management/franchise agreements.
The costs of these capital improvements could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
In addition, we may not be able to fund capital improvements or acquisitions solely from cash provided from our operating activities because we generally must distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding net capital gains, each year to maintain our REIT tax status. As a result, our ability to fund capital expenditures, or investments through retained earnings, is very limited. Consequently, we rely upon the availability of debt or equity capital to fund our investments and capital improvements. These sources of funds may not be available on reasonable terms and conditions.
There are several unique risks associated with the ownership of Frenchman's Reef.
Frenchman's Reef is located on the side of a cliff facing the ocean in the United States Virgin Islands, which is in the so-called “hurricane belt” in the Caribbean. It was partially destroyed by a hurricane in the mid-1990's and since then has been damaged by subsequent hurricanes, including Hurricane Earl in 2010. While we maintain insurance against wind damage in an amount we believe is customarily obtained for or by hotel owners, Frenchman's Reef has a $6.4 million deductible if it is damaged due to a named windstorm event; therefore, we are self-insured for losses up to $6.4 million caused by a named windstorm event. While we cannot predict whether there will be another hurricane that will impact this hotel, if there were, then it could have a material adverse affect on the operations of this hotel. Further, in the event of a substantial loss, our insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover the full current market value or replacement cost of the hotel. Should a loss in excess of insured limits occur, we could lose all or a portion of the capital we have invested in Frenchman's Reef, as well as the anticipated future revenue and profits of this hotel. In that event, we might nevertheless remain obligated for mortgage debt related to Frenchman's Reef. Inflation, changes in building codes and ordinances, environmental considerations and other factors might also keep us from using insurance proceeds to replace or renovate a hotel after it has been damaged or destroyed. Under those circumstances, the insurance proceeds we receive might be inadequate to restore our economic position with regard to the damaged or destroyed property.
Part of a renovation and repositioning program completed in 2011 included a redesign to the mechanical plant to allow the hotel to generate its own electricity in order to significantly reduce both the kilowatt hour consumption and the cost per kilowatt hour; however, the hotel still depends on oil to generate electricity. If the price of oil were to increase, the cost to generate electricity would likely increase dramatically and this would have a significant impact on the results of operation at the hotel. Also, if the
-12-
hotel's self-generation system fails, the hotel would be forced to utilize service from local utility providers which are prone to disruptions, including power outages from time to time. Such disruptions could adversely affect occupancy rates, revenues and profits at the hotel.
Frenchman's Reef benefits from a tax holiday, which permits us to pay income taxes at 19 percent of the statutory tax rate of 37.4 percent in the U.S. Virgin Islands, as well as reduced rates for both property and gross receipts taxes. The tax holiday expires in February 2015 and there can be no assurance that such tax exemptions or similar exemptions will be secured at the expiration of the tax holiday.
In the event of natural disasters, terrorist attacks, significant military actions, outbreaks of contagious diseases or other events for which we may not have adequate insurance, our operations may suffer.
Five of our hotels (the Los Angeles Airport Marriott, The Lodge at Sonoma, a Renaissance Resort & Spa, the Westin San Diego, the Hotel Rex, and the Renaissance Charleston Historic District) are located in areas that are seismically active and, as noted above, Frenchman's Reef is located in an area of the Caribbean that has, and will continue, to experience many hurricanes. Eleven of our hotels are located in metropolitan markets that have been, or may in the future be, targets of actual or threatened terrorist attacks, including New York City, Chicago, Boston and Los Angeles. These hotels are material to our financial results, having constituted approximately 68% of our total revenues in 2013. Additionally, even in the absence of direct physical damage to our hotels, the occurrence of any natural disasters, terrorist attacks, significant military actions, outbreaks of diseases, such as H1N1, SARS, the avian bird flu or Legionnaires disease, or other casualty events, will likely have a material adverse effect on business and commercial travelers and tourists, the economy generally and the hotel and tourism industries in particular. While we cannot predict the impact of the occurrence of any of these events, such impact could result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
We have acquired and intend to maintain comprehensive insurance on each of our hotels, including liability, terrorism, fire and extended coverage, of the type and amount we believe are customarily obtained for or by hotel owners. We cannot assure you that such coverage will continue to be available at reasonable rates or with reasonable deductibles. For example, Frenchman's Reef & Morning Star Marriott Beach Resort has a high deductible if it is damaged due to a named wind storm. Various types of catastrophic losses, like earthquakes, floods, losses from foreign terrorist activities, or losses from domestic terrorist activities may not be insurable or are generally not insured because of economic infeasibility, legal restrictions or the policies of insurers. Future lenders may require such insurance and our failure to obtain such insurance could constitute a default under loan agreements. Depending on our access to capital, liquidity and the value of the properties securing the affected loan in relation to the balance of the loan, a default could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and ability to obtain future financing.
In the event of a substantial loss, our insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover the full current market value or replacement cost of our lost investment. Should an uninsured loss or a loss in excess of insured limits occur, we could lose all or a portion of the capital we have invested in a hotel, as well as the anticipated future revenue from that particular hotel. In that event, we might nevertheless remain obligated for any mortgage debt or other financial obligations secured by or related to the property. Inflation, changes in building codes and ordinances, environmental considerations and other factors might also keep us from using insurance proceeds to replace or renovate a hotel after it has been damaged or destroyed. Under those circumstances, the insurance proceeds we receive might be inadequate to restore our economic position with regard to the damaged or destroyed property.
With or without insurance, damage to any of our hotels, or to the hotel industry generally, due to fire, hurricane, earthquake, terrorism, outbreaks such as H1N1, SARS, the avian bird flu or Legionnaires disease, or other man-made or natural disasters or casualty events could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
We face risks associated with investments in mortgage loans.
Our investment in a senior loan secured by the Allerton Hotel located in Chicago, Illinois, and any other similar investment in mortgage loans that we may undertake in the future, may negatively affect our financial condition if any such loans become non-performing loans. Further, if we were to exercise our rights on any such non-performing loans by commencing foreclosure proceedings, such process could be expensive and lengthy and could result in a bankruptcy filing. Foreclosure and/or bankruptcy could have a substantial negative effect on our anticipated return on a mortgage loan. Foreclosure may also create a negative public perception of the related mortgaged property, resulting in a diminution of its value.
We face risks associated with the development of a hotel by a third-party developer.
-13-
We are party to a purchase and sale agreement to acquire, upon completion, a hotel property under development on West 42nd Street in Times Square, New York City. The hotel is expected to contain 282 guest rooms and be completed during the summer of 2014. We are exposed to the risk that the third-party developer will fail to substantially complete the development of the hotel in accordance with the contractual scope or that the developer defaults under another obligation set forth in the purchase and sale agreement with us. We are also exposed to the risk that the developer will default on an obligation to a lender, which may have a security interest in the property senior to us. Although we currently expect that we will have the funds available to purchase the hotel, there is a risk that at or prior to such time as our obligation to purchase the hotel comes due, we may not have sufficient funds to acquire the hotel from the seller, or debt or equity capital may not be available on reasonable terms and conditions or at all, in which case we would forfeit a substantial deposit. In any of these cases, we may lose the opportunity to acquire the hotel and may have no recourse to the developer or any other party.
Our results of operations are highly dependent on the management of our hotel properties by third-party hotel management companies.
In order to qualify as a REIT, we cannot operate our hotel properties or control the daily operations of our hotel properties. Our TRS lessees may not operate these hotel properties and, therefore, they must enter into third-party hotel management agreements with one or more eligible independent contractors. Thus, third-party hotel management companies that enter into management contracts with our TRS lessees control the daily operations of our hotel properties.
Under the terms of the hotel management agreements that we have entered into, or that we will enter into in the future, our ability to participate in operating decisions regarding our hotel properties is limited. We currently rely, and will continue to rely, on these hotel management companies to adequately operate our hotel properties under the terms of the hotel management agreements. We do not have the authority to require any hotel property to be operated in a particular manner or to govern any particular aspect of its operations (for instance, setting room rates and cost structures). Thus, even if we believe our hotel properties are being operated inefficiently or in a manner that does not result in satisfactory occupancy rates, ADRs and operating profits, we may not have sufficient rights under our hotel management agreements to enable us to force the hotel management company to change its method of operation. We can only seek redress if a hotel management company violates the terms of the applicable hotel management agreement with the TRS lessee, and then only to the extent of the remedies provided for under the terms of the hotel management agreement. Although several of our management agreements have relatively short terms, most of our current management agreements are non-terminable, subject to certain exceptions for cause or failure to achieve certain performance targets. In the event that we need to replace any of our hotel management companies pursuant to termination for cause or performance, we may experience significant disruptions at the affected properties, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
Several of our hotels are operated under franchise agreements and we are subject to the risks associated with the franchise brand and the costs associated with maintaining the franchise license.
Nine of our hotels operate under franchise agreements. The maintenance of the franchise licenses for branded hotel properties is subject to the franchisors’ operating standards and other terms and conditions set forth in the applicable franchise agreement. Franchisors periodically inspect hotel properties to ensure that we and our lessees and management companies follow their standards. Failure by us, one of our taxable REIT subsidiary lessees or one of our third-party management companies to maintain these standards or other terms and conditions of the franchise agreement could result in us being in default and the franchise agreement being terminated. If a franchise agreement is terminated for failure to comply with its terms, including the maintenance of brand standards, we may be liable to the franchisor for a termination payment, which could include liquidated damages. We also face the risk of termination of the franchise agreement if we do not make franchisor-required capital expenditures under the franchise agreements.
Our ownership of properties through ground leases exposes us to the risk that we may have difficulty financing such properties, be forced to sell such properties for a lower price or lose such properties upon breach or termination of the ground leases.
We hold a leasehold interest in the land underlying five of our hotels (Bethesda Marriott Suites, Courtyard Manhattan/Fifth Avenue, the Salt Lake City Marriott Downtown, the Westin Boston Waterfront Hotel, and the Hilton Minneapolis), the parking lot at another of our hotels (Renaissance Worthington) and the golf course at another of our hotels (Oak Brook Hills Resort). We may acquire additional hotels in the future subject to ground leases. In the past, from time to time, secured lenders have been unwilling to lend, or otherwise charged higher interest rates, for loans secured by a leasehold mortgage compared to loans secured by a fee simple mortgage. In addition, at any given time, investors may be disinterested in buying properties subject to a ground lease and may pay a lower price for such properties than for a comparable property in fee simple or they may not purchase such properties at any price whatsoever, so we may find that we will have a difficult time selling a property subject to a ground lease
-14-
or may receive lower proceeds from a sale. Finally, as the lessee under our ground leases, we are exposed to the possibility of losing the hotel, or a portion of the hotel, upon termination, or an earlier breach by us, of the ground lease, which could result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
Due to restrictions in our hotel management agreements, franchise agreements, mortgage agreements and ground leases, we may not be able to sell our hotels at the highest possible price, or at all.
Our current hotel management agreements are long-term and contain certain restrictions on selling our hotels, which may affect the value of our hotels.
The hotel management agreements that we have entered into, and those we expect to enter into in the future, contain provisions restricting our ability to dispose of our hotels which, in turn, may have an adverse affect on the value of our hotels. Our hotel management agreements generally prohibit the sale of a hotel to:
• | certain competitors of the manager; |
• | purchasers who are insufficiently capitalized; or |
• | purchasers who might jeopardize certain liquor or gaming licenses. |
In addition, our current hotel management agreements contain initial terms ranging from five to forty years and certain agreements have renewal periods of five to forty-five years which are exercisable at the option of the property manager. Because our hotels would have to be sold subject to the applicable hotel management agreement, the term length of a hotel management agreement may deter some potential purchasers and could adversely impact the price realized from any such sale. To the extent we receive lower sale proceeds, we could experience a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to stockholders.
Our mortgage agreements contain certain provisions that may limit our ability to sell our hotels.
In order to assign or transfer our rights and obligations under certain of our mortgage agreements, we generally must obtain the consent of the lender, pay a fee equal to a fixed percentage of the outstanding loan balance, and pay any costs incurred by the lender in connection with any such assignment or transfer.
These provisions of our mortgage agreements may limit our ability to sell our hotels which, in turn, could adversely impact the price realized from any such sale. To the extent we receive lower sale proceeds, we could experience a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to stockholders.
Our ground leases contain certain provisions that may limit our ability to sell our hotels.
Our ground lease agreements with respect to Bethesda Marriott Suites, Salt Lake City Marriott Downtown, the Westin Boston Waterfront Hotel, and the Hilton Minneapolis require the consent of the lessor for assignment or transfer. These provisions of our ground leases may limit our ability to sell our hotels which, in turn, could adversely impact the price realized from any such sale. In addition, at any given time, investors may be disinterested in buying properties subject to a ground lease and may pay a lower price for such properties than for a comparable property in fee simple or they may not purchase such properties at any price. Accordingly, we may find it difficult to sell a property subject to a ground lease or may receive lower proceeds from any such sale. To the extent we receive lower sale proceeds, we could experience a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to stockholders.
The failure of tenants to make rent payments under our retail leases or to successfully negotiate with unions may adversely affect our results of operation.
On occasion, tenants at our hotel properties may fail to make rent payments as and when due. Generally, we hold security deposits in connection with each of the leases which may be applied in the event that the tenant under the lease fails or is unable to make payments; however, these security deposits do not provide us with cash flow to pay distributions or for other purposes. In the event that a tenant continually fails to make rent payments, the security deposits may be applied in full to the non-payment of rents and we face the risk of being able to recover only a portion of the rents due to us or being unable to recover any amounts whatsoever. In addition, employees of a number of our tenants are represented by labor unions. If unionized employees of our tenants were to engage in a strike, work stoppage or other slow-downs in the future, our tenants could experience a significant
-15-
disruption of their operations which could in turn disrupt business at our hotels and affect our results of operations. We also risk circumstances where our tenants fail to meet their obligations under their union contracts, which could result in increased liability to us.
We face competition for hotel acquisitions and investments and we may not be successful in identifying or completing hotel acquisitions and investments that meet our criteria, which may impede our growth.
One component of our long-term business strategy is expansion through hotel acquisitions and investments. However, we may not be successful in identifying or completing acquisitions or investments that are consistent with our strategy. We compete with institutional pension funds, private equity funds, REITs, hotel companies and others who are engaged in hotel acquisitions and investments. This competition for hotel investments may increase the price we pay for hotels and these competitors may succeed in acquiring those hotels that we seek to acquire. Furthermore, our potential acquisition targets may find our competitors to be more attractive suitors because they may have greater financial resources, may not be dependent on third-party financing or the capital markets, may be willing to pay more or may have a more compatible operating philosophy. In addition, the number of entities competing for suitable hotels may increase in the future, which would increase demand for these hotels and the prices we must pay to acquire them. If we pay higher prices for hotels, our returns on investment and profitability may be reduced. Also, future acquisitions of hotels, hotel companies or hotel investments may not yield the returns we expect, especially if we cannot obtain financing without paying higher borrowing costs, and may result in stockholder dilution.
We may fail to successfully integrate and operate newly acquired hotels.
Our ability to successfully integrate and operate newly acquired hotels is subject to the following risks:
• | we may not possess the same level of familiarity with the dynamics and market conditions of any new markets that we may enter, which could result in us paying too much for hotels in new markets; |
• | market conditions may result in lower than expected occupancy and room rates; |
• | we may acquire hotels without any recourse, or with only limited recourse, for liabilities, whether known or unknown, such as clean-up of environmental contamination, claims by tenants, vendors or other persons against the former owners of the hotels and claims for indemnification by general partners, directors, officers and others indemnified by the former owners of the hotels; |
• | we may need to spend more than underwritten amounts to make necessary improvements or renovations to our newly acquired hotels; and |
• | we may be unable to quickly and efficiently integrate new acquisitions into our existing operations. |
If we cannot operate acquired hotels to meet our goals or expectations, our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be materially and adversely affected.
Actions by organized labor could have a material adverse effect on our business.
In 2013, we received “intent to organize” letters at two of our hotels from a labor union. It is probable that the third-party manager of at least one of these hotels and possible that the manager of another hotel will enter into collective bargaining agreements with the labor union. We also believe that unions are generally becoming more aggressive about organizing workers at hotels in certain locations. Potential labor activities at these hotels could significantly increase the administrative, labor and legal expenses of the third-party management companies managing these companies and reduce the profits we receive from these hotels. If other hotels in our portfolio are organized, this could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operation and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
Our success depends on senior executive officers whose continued service is not guaranteed.
We depend on the efforts and expertise of our senior executive officers to manage our day-to-day operations and strategic business direction. The loss of any of their services could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
We and our hotel managers rely on information technology in our operations and any material failures, inadequacies, interruptions or security failures could harm our business.
-16-
We and our hotel managers rely on information technologies and systems, including the Internet, to access, store, transmit, deliver and manage information and processes. Although we and our hotel managers believe we have taken commercially reasonable steps to protect the security of these systems, there can be no assurance that such security measures will prevent failures, inadequacies or interruptions in system services, or that system security will not be breached through physical or electronic break-ins, computer viruses, and attacks by hackers. Disruptions in service, system shutdowns and security breaches in either the information technologies and systems of our hotel managers or our own information technologies and systems, including unauthorized disclosure of confidential information, could have a material adverse effect on our business operations and results, our financial and compliance reporting, and our reputation.
We may be adversely affected by increased use of business related technology which may reduce the need for business related travel.
The increased use of teleconference and video-conference technology by businesses could result in decreased business travel as companies increase the use of technologies that allow multiple parties from different locations to participate in meetings without traveling to a centralized meeting location. To the extent that such technologies play an increased role in day-to-day business and the necessity for business related travel decreases, hotel room demand may decrease and our financial condition, results of operations, the market price of our common stock and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders may be adversely affected.
From time to time we may be subject to litigation, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and trading price of our common stock.
From time to time we may be subject to litigation. Some of these claims may result in defense costs, settlements, fines or judgments against us, some of which are not, or cannot be, covered by insurance. Payment of any such costs, settlements, fines or judgments that are not insured could have a material adverse impact on our financial position and results of operations. In addition, certain litigation or the resolution of certain litigation may affect the availability or cost of some of our insurance coverage, which could adversely impact our results of operations and cash flows, expose us to increased risks that would be uninsured, and/or adversely impact our ability to attract officers and directors.
Risks Related to the Economy and Credit Markets
The lack of availability and terms of financing could adversely impact the amounts, sources and costs of capital available to us.
The ownership of hotels is very capital intensive. We finance the acquisition of our hotels with a mixture of equity and long-term debt while we traditionally finance renovations and operating needs with cash provided from operations or with borrowings from our corporate credit facility. Typically, when we acquire a hotel, we seek a five to ten year loan secured by a mortgage on the hotel. These loans have a large balloon payment due at their maturity. Generally, we find it more efficient to place a significant amount of debt on a small number of our hotels and we try to maintain a significant number of our hotels unencumbered.
During periods of economic recession, it could be difficult for us to borrow money. Over the last ten years, a significant percentage of hotel loans were made by lenders who sold such loans to securitized lending vehicles, such as commercial mortgage backed security (CMBS) pools. If the market for new CMBS issuances results in CMBS lenders making fewer loans, there is a risk that the debt capital available to hotel owners could be reduced.
An uncertain environment in the lodging industry and the economy generally could result in declines in our average daily room rates, occupancy and RevPAR, and thereby have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.
The performance of the lodging industry has traditionally been closely linked with the general economy. A stall in economic growth or an economic recession would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. If a property's occupancy or room rates drop to the point where its revenues are less than its operating expenses, then we would be required to spend additional funds in order to cover that property's operating expenses.
In addition, if the operating results decline at our hotels secured by mortgage debt there may not be sufficient operating profit from the hotel to fund the debt service on the mortgage. In such a case, we may be forced to choose from a number of unfavorable options, including using corporate cash, drawing on our corporate credit facility, selling a hotel on disadvantageous terms, including an unattractive price, or defaulting on the mortgage debt and permitting the lender to foreclose. Any one of these options could
-17-
have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.
The market price of our common stock could be volatile and could decline, resulting in a substantial or complete loss on our common stockholders' investment.
The market price of our common stock has been highly volatile in the past, and investors in our common stock may experience a decrease in the value of their shares, including decreases unrelated to our operating performance or prospects. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility in their stock price. This type of litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our management's attention and resources.
Risks Related to Our Debt and Financing
Our existing indebtedness contains financial covenants that could limit our operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
Our existing property-level debt instruments contain restrictions (including cash management provisions) that may under circumstances specified in the loan agreements prohibit our subsidiaries that own our hotels from making distributions or paying dividends, repaying loans to us or other subsidiaries or transferring any of their assets to us or another subsidiary. Failure to meet our financial covenants could result from, among other things, changes in our results of operations, the incurrence of additional debt or changes in general economic conditions. In addition, this could cause one or more of our lenders to accelerate the timing of payments and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders. The terms of our debt may restrict our ability to engage in transactions that we believe would otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders.
Our credit facility contains financial covenants that may constrain our ability to sell assets and make distributions to our stockholders.
Our corporate credit facility contains several financial covenants, the most constraining of which limits the amount of debt we may incur compared to the value of our hotels (our leverage covenant) and the amount of debt service we pay compared to our cash flow (our debt service coverage covenant). If we were to default under either of these covenants, the lenders may require us to repay all amounts then outstanding under our credit facility and may terminate our credit facility. These two financial covenants constrain us from incurring material amounts of additional debt or from selling properties that generate a material amount of income. In addition our credit facility requires that we maintain a minimum number of our hotels as unencumbered assets.
Many of our existing mortgage debt agreements contain “cash trap” provisions that could limit our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
Certain of our loan agreements contain cash trap provisions that may be triggered if the performance of the affected hotel or hotels declines. If the provisions in one or more of these loan agreements are triggered, substantially all of the profit generated by the hotel or hotels affected is deposited directly into lockbox accounts and then swept into cash management accounts for the benefit of the lenders. Cash is distributed to us only after certain items are paid, including deposits into leasing and maintenance reserves and the payment of debt service, insurance, taxes, operating expenses, and extraordinary capital expenditures and leasing expenses. This could affect our liquidity and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
There is refinancing risk associated with our debt.
Our typical debt contains limited principal amortization; therefore the vast majority of the principal must be repaid at the maturity of the loan in a so-called “balloon payment.” We have significant debt maturities in 2015 and 2016. In the event that we do not have sufficient funds to repay the debt at the maturity of these loans, we will need to refinance this debt. If the credit environment is constrained at the time of our debt maturities, we would have a very difficult time refinancing debt. In addition, we locked in our fixed-rate debt at a point in time when we were able to obtain favorable interest rate, principal amortization and other terms. When we refinance our debt, prevailing interest rates and other factors may result in paying a greater amount of debt service, which will adversely affect our cash flow, and, consequently, our cash available for distribution to our stockholders. If we are unable to refinance our debt on acceptable terms, we may be forced to choose from a number of unfavorable options. These options include agreeing to otherwise unfavorable financing terms on one or more of our unencumbered assets, selling one or more hotels at disadvantageous terms, including unattractive prices, or defaulting on the mortgage and permitting the lender to foreclose. Any one of these options could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
-18-
If we default on our secured debt in the future, the lenders may foreclose on our hotels.
All of our indebtedness, except our credit facility, is secured by single property first mortgages on the applicable property. If we default on any of the secured loans, the lender will be able to foreclose on the property pledged to the relevant lender under that loan. While we have maintained certain of our hotels unencumbered by mortgage debt, we have a relatively high loan-to-value on a number of our hotels which are subject to mortgage loans and, as a result, those mortgaged hotels may be at an increased risk of default and foreclosure. In addition, to the extent we cannot meet any future debt service obligations, we will risk losing some or all of our hotels that are pledged to secure our obligation to foreclosure. This could affect our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
In addition to losing the property, a foreclosure may result in recognition of taxable income. Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), a foreclosure of property securing nonrecourse debt would be treated as a sale of the property for a purchase price equal to the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage. If the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage exceeds our tax basis in the property, we would recognize taxable income on foreclosure even though we did not receive any cash proceeds. As a result, we may be required to identify and utilize other sources of cash for distributions to our stockholders. If this occurs, our financial condition, cash flow and ability to satisfy our other debt obligations or ability to pay distributions may be adversely affected.
Future debt service obligations may adversely affect our operating results, require us to liquidate our properties, jeopardize our ability to make cash distributions necessary to maintain our tax status as a REIT and limit our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
In the future, we and our subsidiaries may be able to incur substantial additional debt, including secured debt. While borrowing costs are currently low, borrowing costs on new and refinanced debt may be more expensive. Our existing debt, and any additional debt borrowed in the future could subject us to many risks, including the risks that:
• | our cash flow from operations will be insufficient to make required payments of principal and interest or to make cash distributions necessary to maintain our tax status as a REIT; |
• | we may be vulnerable to adverse economic and industry conditions; |
• | we may be required to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to the repayment of our debt, thereby reducing the cash available for distribution to our stockholders, funds available for operations and capital expenditures, future investment opportunities or other purposes; |
• | the terms of any refinancing is likely not as favorable as the terms of the debt being refinanced; and |
• | the use of leverage could adversely affect our stock price and the ability to make distributions to our stockholders. |
If we violate covenants in our future indebtedness agreements, we could be required to repay all or a portion of our indebtedness before maturity at a time when we might be unable to arrange financing for such repayment on favorable terms, if at all.
Higher interest rates could increase debt service requirements on our floating rate debt, if any, and refinanced debt and could reduce the amounts available for distribution to our stockholders, as well as reduce funds available for our operations, future investment opportunities or other purposes. We may obtain in the future one or more forms of interest rate protection - in the form of swap agreements, interest rate cap contracts or similar agreements - to “hedge” against the possible negative effects of interest rate fluctuations. However, hedging is expensive, there is no perfect hedge, and we cannot assure you that any hedging will adequately mitigate the adverse effects of interest rate increases or that counterparties under these agreements will honor their obligations. In addition, we may be subject to risks of default by hedging counter-parties.
Risks Related to Regulation, Taxes and the Environment
Noncompliance with governmental regulations could adversely affect our operating results.
Environmental matters and climate change.
Our hotels are, and the hotels we acquire in the future will be, subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws. Under these laws, courts and government agencies may have the authority to require us, as owner of a contaminated property, to
-19-
clean up the property, even if we did not know of or were not responsible for the contamination. These laws also apply to persons who owned a property at the time it became contaminated. In addition to the costs of cleanup, environmental contamination can affect the value of a property and, therefore, an owner's ability to borrow funds using the property as collateral or to sell the property. Under the environmental laws, courts and government agencies also have the authority to require that a person who sent waste to a waste disposal facility, such as a landfill or an incinerator, pay for the clean-up of that facility if it becomes contaminated and threatens human health or the environment. A person who arranges for the disposal or treatment, or transports for disposal or treatment, a hazardous substance at a property owned by another person may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of hazardous substances released into the environment at that property.
Furthermore, various court decisions have established that third parties may recover damages for injury caused by property contamination. For instance, a person exposed to asbestos while staying in a hotel may seek to recover damages if he or she suffers injury from the asbestos. Lastly, some of these environmental laws restrict the use of a property or place conditions on various activities. For example, certain laws require a business using chemicals (such as swimming pool chemicals at a hotel) to manage them carefully and to notify local officials that the chemicals are being used.
We could be responsible for the costs associated with a contaminated property. The costs to clean up a contaminated property, to defend against a claim, or to comply with environmental laws could be material and could adversely affect the funds available for distribution to our stockholders. We cannot assure you that future laws or regulations will not impose material environmental liabilities or that the current environmental condition of our hotels will not be affected by the condition of the properties in the vicinity of our hotels (such as the presence of leaking underground storage tanks) or by third parties unrelated to us.
We may face liability regardless of our knowledge of the contamination, the timing of the contamination, the cause of the contamination, or the party responsible for the contamination of the property.
Although we have taken and will take commercially reasonable steps to assess the condition of our properties, there may be unknown environmental problems associated with our properties. If environmental contamination exists on our properties, we could become subject to strict, joint and several liability for the contamination by virtue of our ownership interest. In addition, we are obligated to indemnify our lenders for any liability they may incur in connection with a contaminated property.
The presence of hazardous substances or petroleum contamination on a property may adversely affect our ability to sell the property and could cause us to incur substantial remediation costs. The discovery of environmental liabilities attached to our properties could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.
Numerous treaties, laws and regulations have been enacted to regulate or limit carbon emissions. Changes in the regulations and legislation relating to climate change, and complying with such laws and regulations, may require us to make significant investments in our hotels and could result in increased energy costs at our properties which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.
Americans with Disabilities Act and other changes in governmental rules and regulations.
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) all public accommodations must meet various federal non-discrimination requirements related to access and use by individuals with disabilities. Compliance with the ADA's requirements could require removal of architectural barriers to access and non-compliance could result in the payment of civil penalties, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. If we are required to make substantial modifications to our hotels, whether to comply with the ADA or other changes in governmental rules and regulations, our financial condition, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be adversely affected.
Our hotel properties may contain or develop harmful mold, which could lead to liability for adverse health effects and costs of remediating the problem.
When excessive moisture accumulates in buildings or on building materials, mold growth may occur, particularly if the moisture problem remains undiscovered or is not addressed over a period of time. Some molds may produce airborne toxins or irritants. Concern about indoor exposure to mold has been increasing, as exposure to mold may cause a variety of adverse health effects and symptoms, including allergic reactions. As a result, the presence of mold to which our hotel guests or employees could be exposed at any of our properties could require us to undertake a costly remediation program to contain or remove the mold from the affected property, which would reduce our cash available for distribution. In addition, exposure to mold by our guests or employees, management company employees or others could expose us to liability if property damage or adverse health concerns arise.
-20-
Risks Related to Our Status as a REIT
We cannot assure you that we will remain qualified as a REIT.
We believe we are qualified to be taxed as a REIT for our taxable year ended December 31, 2013, and we expect to continue to qualify as a REIT for future taxable years, but we cannot assure you that we have qualified, or will remain qualified, as a REIT.
The REIT qualification requirements are extremely complex and official interpretations of the federal income tax laws governing qualification as a REIT are limited. Certain aspects of our REIT qualification are beyond our control. Accordingly, we cannot be certain that we will be successful in operating so that we can remain qualified as a REIT. At any time, new laws, interpretations, or court decisions may change the federal tax laws or the federal income tax consequences of our qualification as a REIT.
Moreover, our charter provides that our board of directors may revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election, without the approval of our stockholders, if it determines that it is no longer in our best interest to continue to qualify as a REIT.
If we fail to qualify as a REIT and do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, or otherwise cease to be a REIT, we will be subject to federal income tax on our taxable income at corporate rates. We might need to borrow money or sell assets in order to pay any such tax. Also, we would not be allowed a deduction for dividends paid to our stockholders in computing our taxable income and we would no longer be compelled to make distributions under the Code. Unless we were entitled to relief under certain federal income tax laws, we could not re-elect REIT status until the fifth calendar year after the year in which we failed to qualify as a REIT. If we fail to qualify as a REIT but are eligible for certain relief provisions, then we may retain our status as a REIT but we may be required to pay a penalty tax, which could be substantial.
Maintaining our REIT qualification contains certain restrictions and drawbacks.
Complying with REIT requirements may cause us to forgo otherwise attractive opportunities.
To remain qualified as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of our stock. In order to meet these tests, we may be required to forgo attractive business or investment opportunities. For example, we may not lease to our TRS any hotel which contains gaming. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to operate solely to maximize profits.
To qualify as a REIT we must meet annual distribution requirements.
In order to remain qualified as a REIT, we generally are required to distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding net capital gains, each year to our stockholders. To the extent that we satisfy this distribution requirement, but distribute less than 100% of our taxable income, we will be subject to federal corporate income tax on our undistributed taxable income. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax if the actual amount that we pay out to our stockholders in a calendar year is less than a minimum amount specified under federal tax laws. As a result of differences between cash flow and the accrual of income and expenses for tax purposes, or nondeductible expenditures, for example, our REIT taxable income in any given year could exceed our cash available for distribution. Accordingly, we may be required to borrow money or sell assets to make distributions sufficient to enable us to pay out enough of our taxable income to satisfy the distribution requirement and to avoid federal corporate income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax in a particular year.
The formation of our TRSs and TRS lessees increases our overall tax liability.
Our domestic TRSs are subject to federal and state income tax on their taxable income. The taxable income of our TRS lessees currently consists and generally will continue to consist of revenues from the hotels leased by our TRS lessees plus, in certain cases, key money payments (amounts paid to us by a hotel management company in exchange for the right to manage a hotel we acquire) and yield support payments, net of the operating expenses for such properties and rent payments to us. Such taxes could be substantial. Our non-U.S. TRSs also may be subject to tax in jurisdictions where they operate.
We will be subject to a 100% excise tax to the extent that transactions with our TRSs are not conducted on an arm's-length basis. For example, to the extent that the rent paid by one of our TRS lessees exceeds an arm's-length rental amount, such excess
-21-
is potentially subject to this excise tax. While we believe we structure all of our leases on an arm's-length basis, upon an audit, the IRS might disagree with our conclusion.
You may be restricted from transferring our common stock.
In order to maintain our REIT qualification, among other requirements, no more than 50% in value of our outstanding stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the federal income tax laws to include certain entities) during the last half of any taxable year. In addition, the REIT rules generally prohibit a manager of one of our hotels from owning, directly or indirectly, more than 35% of our stock and a person who holds 35% or more of our stock from also holding, directly or indirectly, more than 35% of any such hotel management company. To qualify for and preserve REIT status, our charter contains an aggregate share ownership limit and a common share ownership limit. Generally, any shares of our stock owned by affiliated owners will be added together for purposes of the aggregate share ownership limit, and any shares of common stock owned by affiliated owners will be added together for purposes of the common share ownership limit.
If anyone transfers or owns shares in a way that would violate the aggregate share ownership limit or the common share ownership limit (unless such ownership limits have been waived by our board of directors), or would prevent us from continuing to qualify as a REIT under the federal income tax laws, those shares instead will be transferred to a trust for the benefit of a charitable beneficiary and will be either redeemed by us or sold to a person whose ownership of the shares will not violate the aggregate share ownership limit or the common share ownership limit. If this transfer to a trust would not be effective to prevent a violation of the ownership restrictions in our charter, then the initial intended transfer or ownership will be null and void from the outset. The intended transferee or owner of those shares will be deemed never to have owned the shares. Anyone who acquires or owns shares in violation of the aggregate share ownership limit, the common share ownership limit (unless such ownership limits have been waived by our board of directors) or the other restrictions on transfer or ownership in our charter bears the risk of a financial loss when the shares are redeemed or sold if the market price of our stock falls between the date of purchase and the date of redemption or sale.
Even if we qualify as a REIT, in certain circumstances, we may be subject to federal and state income taxes, which would reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
Even if we qualify and maintain our status as a REIT, we may be subject to federal income taxes or state taxes in various circumstances. For example, net income from a “prohibited transaction” will be subject to a 100% tax. In addition, we may not be able to distribute all of our income in any given year, which would result in corporate level taxes, and we may not make sufficient distributions to avoid excise taxes. We may also decide to retain certain gains from the sale or other disposition of our property and pay income tax directly on such gains. In that event, our stockholders would be required to include such gains in income and would receive a corresponding credit for their share of taxes paid by us. We may also be subject to U.S. state and local and non-U.S. taxes on our income or property, either directly or at the level of our operating partnership or the other companies through which we indirectly own our assets. In addition, we may be subject to federal, state local or non-U.S. taxes in other various circumstances. Any federal or state taxes we pay will reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.
Dividends payable by REITs generally do not qualify for reduced tax rates.
A maximum 20% tax rate applies to “qualified” dividends payable to individual U.S. stockholders. Dividends payable by REITs, however, are generally not qualified dividends eligible for the reduced rates and are taxed at normal ordinary income tax rates. However, to the extent such dividends are attributable to certain dividends that we receive from a taxable REIT subsidiary, such dividends generally will be eligible for the reduced rates that apply to qualified dividends. The more favorable rates applicable to regular corporate dividends could cause investors who are individuals to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the stock of REITs, including our common stock.
Legislative or regulatory action could adversely affect our stockholders.
In recent years, numerous legislative, judicial and administrative changes have been made to the federal income tax laws applicable to investments in REITs and similar entities. Additional changes to applicable tax laws are likely to continue to occur in the future, and we cannot assure our stockholders that any such changes will not adversely affect the taxation of a stockholder. Any such changes could have an adverse effect on an investment in our common stock. All stockholders are urged to consult with their tax advisors with respect to the status of legislative, regulatory or administrative developments and proposals and their potential effect on an investment in our common stock.
Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure
-22-
Provisions of our charter may limit the ability of a third party to acquire control of our company.
Our charter provides that no person may beneficially own more than 9.8% of the aggregate outstanding shares of our common stock or more than 9.8% of the value of the aggregate outstanding shares of our capital stock, except certain “look-through entities,” such as mutual funds, which may beneficially own up to 15% of the aggregate outstanding shares of our common stock or up to 15% of the value of the aggregate outstanding shares of our capital stock. Our board of directors has waived this ownership limitation for certain investors in the past. Our bylaws waive this ownership limitation for certain other classes of investors. These ownership limitations may prevent an acquisition of control of our company by a third party without our board of directors' approval, even if our stockholders believe the change of control is in their best interests.
Our charter also authorizes our board of directors to issue up to 400,000,000 shares of common stock and up to 10,000,000 shares of preferred stock, to classify or reclassify any unissued shares of common stock or preferred stock and to set the preferences, rights and other terms of the classified or reclassified shares. Furthermore, our board of directors may, without any action by the stockholders, amend our charter from time to time to increase or decrease the aggregate number of shares of stock of any class or series that we have authority to issue. Issuances of additional shares of stock may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a transaction or a change in control of our company that might involve a premium to the market price of our common stock or otherwise be in our stockholders' best interests.
Certain advance notice provisions of our bylaws may limit the ability of a third party to acquire control of our company.
Our bylaws provide that (a) with respect to an annual meeting of stockholders, nominations of individuals for election to our board of directors and the proposal of other business to be considered by stockholders may be made only (i) pursuant to our notice of the meeting, (ii) by the board of directors or (iii) by a stockholder who is entitled to vote at the meeting and has complied with the advance notice procedures set forth in the bylaws and (b) with respect to special meetings of stockholders, only the business specified in our notice of meeting may be brought before the meeting of stockholders and nominations of individuals for election to the board of directors may be made only (A) by the board of directors or (B) provided that the board of directors has determined that directors shall be elected at such meeting, by a stockholder who is entitled to vote at the meeting and has complied with the advance notice provisions set forth in the bylaws. These advance notice provisions may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a transaction or a change in control of our company that might involve a premium to the market price of our common stock or otherwise be in our stockholders' best interests.
Provisions of Maryland law may limit the ability of a third party to acquire control of our company.
The Maryland General Corporation Law, or the MGCL, has certain restrictions on a “business combination” and “control share acquisition” which we have opted out of. If an affirmative majority of votes cast by a majority of stockholders entitled to vote approve it, our board of directors may opt in to such provisions of the MGCL. If we opt in, and the stockholders approve it, these provisions may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a transaction or a change in control of our company that might involve a premium price for holders of our common stock or otherwise be in their best interests.
Additionally, Title 3, Subtitle 8 of the MGCL permits our board of directors, without stockholder approval and regardless of what is currently provided in our charter or bylaws, to take certain actions that may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a transaction or a change in control of our company that might involve a premium to the market price of our common stock or otherwise be in our stockholders' best interests.
We have entered into an agreement with each of our senior executive officers that provides each of them benefits in the event his employment is terminated by us without cause, by him for good reason, or under certain circumstances following a change of control of our company.
We have entered into an agreement with each of our senior executive officers that provides each of them with severance benefits if his employment is terminated under certain circumstances following a change of control of our company. Certain of these benefits and the related tax indemnity could prevent or deter a change of control of our company that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders.
You have limited control as a stockholder regarding any changes we make to our policies.
Our board of directors determines our major policies, including policies related to our investment objectives, leverage, financing, growth and distributions to our stockholders. Our board of directors may amend or revise these policies without a vote of our stockholders. This means that our stockholders will have limited control over changes in our policies and those changes
-23-
could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.
We may be unable to generate sufficient cash flows from our operations to make distributions to our stockholders at expected levels, and we cannot assure you of our ability to make distributions in the future.
We intend to pay a quarterly dividend that represents at least 90% of cash available for distribution. Our ability to make this intended distribution may be adversely affected by the risk factors described in this Annual Report on Form 10-K and other reports that we file from time to time with the SEC. In addition, our board of directors has the sole discretion to determine the timing, form and amount of any distributions to our stockholders. Our board of directors will make determinations regarding distributions based upon many facts, including our financial performance, our debt service obligations, any debt covenants, our capital expenditure requirements, the requirements for qualification as a REIT and other factors that our board of directors may deem relevant from time to time.
As a result, no assurance can be given that we will be able to make distributions to our stockholders at expected levels, or at all, or that distributions will increase or even be maintained over time, any of which could materially and adversely affect the market price of our common stock.
Changes in market conditions could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.
As with other publicly traded equity securities, the value of our common stock depends on various market conditions that may change from time to time. Among the market conditions that may affect the value of our common stock are the following:
• | the extent of investor interest in our securities; |
• | the general reputation of REITs and the attractiveness of our equity securities in comparison to other equity securities, including securities issued by other real estate-based companies; |
• | the underlying asset value of our hotels; |
• | investor confidence in the stock and bond markets, generally; |
• | national and local economic conditions; |
• | changes in tax laws; |
• | our financial performance; and |
• | general stock and bond market conditions. |
The market value of our common stock is based primarily upon the market's perception of our growth potential and our current and potential future earnings and cash distributions. Consequently, our common stock may trade at prices that are greater or less than our net asset value per share of common stock. If our future earnings or cash distributions are less than expected, it is likely that the market price of our common stock will diminish.
Future issuances or sales of our common stock may depress the market price of our common stock and have a dilutive effect on our existing stockholders.
We cannot predict whether future issuances of our common stock or the availability of shares for resale in the open market may depress the market price of our common stock. Future issuances or sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the issuance of our common stock in connection with future property, portfolio or business acquisitions, or the perception that such issuances or sales might occur, may cause the market price of our shares to decline. In addition, future issuances or sales of our common stock may be dilutive to existing stockholders.
Future offerings of debt securities or preferred stock, which would be senior to our common stock upon liquidation and for the purpose of distributions, may cause the market price of our common stock to decline.
In the future, we may increase our capital resources by making additional offerings of debt or equity securities, which may include senior or subordinated notes, classes of preferred stock and/or common stock. We will be able to issue additional shares
-24-
of common stock or preferred stock without stockholder approval, unless stockholder approval is required by applicable law or the rules of any stock exchange or automated quotation system on which our securities may be listed or traded. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities and shares of preferred stock and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive a distribution of our available assets prior to the holders of our common stock. Additional equity offerings could significantly dilute the holdings of our existing stockholders or reduce the market price of our common stock, or both. Holders of our common stock are not entitled to preemptive rights or other protections against dilution. Preferred stock and debt, if issued, could have a preference on liquidating distributions or a preference on dividend or interest payments that could limit our ability to make a distribution to the holders of our common stock. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus, our stockholders bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our common stock and diluting their interest.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.
-25-
Item 2. Properties
The following table sets forth certain information for each of our hotels owned as of December 31, 2013.
Property | Location | Number of Rooms | Total Investment(1) | Total Investment Per Room | |||||||||
(In thousands) | |||||||||||||
Chicago Marriott (2) | Chicago, Illinois | 1,198 | $ | 333,602 | $ | 278,466 | |||||||
Los Angeles Airport Marriott (2) | Los Angeles, California | 1,004 | 126,898 | 126,392 | |||||||||
Hilton Minneapolis (2) (3) | Minneapolis, Minnesota | 821 | 157,927 | 192,360 | |||||||||
Westin Boston Waterfront Hotel (3) | Boston, Massachusetts | 793 | 349,480 | 440,706 | |||||||||
Lexington Hotel New York (2) | New York, New York | 725 | 380,614 | 524,985 | |||||||||
Salt Lake City Marriott Downtown (2) (3) | Salt Lake City, Utah | 510 | 54,978 | 107,801 | |||||||||
Renaissance Worthington (2) (4) | Fort Worth, Texas | 504 | 84,046 | 166,759 | |||||||||
Frenchman’s Reef & Morning Star Marriott Beach Resort (2) | St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands | 502 | 140,257 | 279,396 | |||||||||
Orlando Airport Marriott (2) | Orlando, Florida | 485 | 81,079 | 167,173 | |||||||||
Westin San Diego (2) | San Diego, California | 436 | 122,898 | 281,876 | |||||||||
Westin Washington, D.C. City Center (2) | Washington, D.C. | 406 | 153,571 | 378,254 | |||||||||
Oak Brook Hills Resort Chicago (5) | Oak Brook, Illinois | 386 | 77,186 | 199,963 | |||||||||
Hilton Boston Downtown | Boston, Massachusetts | 362 | 162,022 | 447,575 | |||||||||
Vail Marriott Mountain Resort & Spa | Vail, Colorado | 344 | 66,559 | 193,486 | |||||||||
Marriott Atlanta Alpharetta | Atlanta, Georgia | 318 | 38,588 | 121,347 | |||||||||
Courtyard Manhattan/Midtown East (2) | New York, New York | 317 | 78,119 | 246,431 | |||||||||
Conrad Chicago | Chicago, Illinois | 311 | 126,725 | 407,475 | |||||||||
Bethesda Marriott Suites (3) | Bethesda, Maryland | 272 | 48,485 | 178,254 | |||||||||
Hilton Burlington | Burlington, Vermont | 258 | 55,531 | 215,236 | |||||||||
JW Marriott Denver at Cherry Creek (2) | Denver, Colorado | 196 | 74,942 | 382,356 | |||||||||
Courtyard Manhattan/Fifth Avenue (2) (3) | New York, New York | 185 | 45,718 | 247,124 | |||||||||
The Lodge at Sonoma, a Renaissance Resort & Spa (2) | Sonoma, California | 182 | 32,359 | 177,797 | |||||||||
Courtyard Denver Downtown | Denver, Colorado | 177 | 46,347 | 261,848 | |||||||||
Hilton Garden Inn Chelsea/New York City | New York, New York | 169 | 69,684 | 412,331 | |||||||||
Renaissance Charleston | Charleston, South Carolina | 166 | 39,000 | 234,939 | |||||||||
Hotel Rex | San Francisco, California | 94 | 29,553 | 314,394 | |||||||||
Total | 11,121 | $ | 2,976,168 | $ | 267,617 | ||||||||
________________
(1) | Total investment represents our initial investment in the hotel plus any owner-funded capital expenditures since acquisition. |
(2) | The hotel is subject to a mortgage loan. |
(3) | The hotel is subject to a long-term ground lease. |
(4) | A portion of the parking garage at the hotel is subject to three ground leases that cover, contiguously with each other, approximately one-fourth of the land on which the parking garage is constructed. |
(5) | The golf course at the resort is subject to a ground lease covering approximately 110 acres. |
We are party to hotel management agreements for each of our hotels and franchise agreements for nine of our hotels. Additional information regarding our hotel management and franchise agreements can be found in Note 13 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements.
Five of our hotels are subject to ground lease agreements. Additional information regarding our hotels that are subject to ground leases can be found in Note 14 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings
We are subject to various claims, lawsuits and legal proceedings, including routine litigation arising in the ordinary course of business, regarding the operation of our hotels and company matters. While it is not possible to ascertain the ultimate outcome of such matters, management believes that the aggregate amount of such liabilities, if any, in excess of amounts covered by
-26-
insurance will not have a material adverse impact on our financial condition or results of operations. The outcome of claims, lawsuits and legal proceedings brought against the Company, however, is subject to significant uncertainties.
Item 4. | Mine Safety Disclosures |
Not applicable.
-27-
Part II
Item 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities
Market Information
Our common stock trades on the NYSE under the symbol “DRH”. The following table sets forth, for the indicated period, the high and low closing prices for the common stock, as reported on the NYSE:
Price Range | ||||||||
High | Low | |||||||
Year Ended December 31, 2012: | ||||||||
First Quarter | $ | 10.98 | $ | 9.55 | ||||
Second Quarter | 10.82 | 9.30 | ||||||
Third Quarter | 10.45 | 9.19 | ||||||
Fourth Quarter | 10.43 | 8.16 | ||||||
Year Ended December 31, 2013: | ||||||||
First Quarter | 9.53 | 8.71 | ||||||
Second Quarter | 10.31 | 8.81 | ||||||
Third Quarter | 10.89 | 9.27 | ||||||
Fourth Quarter | 11.78 | 10.56 | ||||||
The closing price of our common stock on the NYSE on December 31, 2013 was $11.55 per share.
The following graph compares the five-year cumulative total stockholder return on our common stock against the cumulative total returns of the Standard & Poor's 500 Index (the “S&P 500 Total Return”) and Morgan Stanley REIT Index (the “RMZ Total Return”). The graph assumes an initial investment of $100 in our common stock in each of the indexes and also assumes the reinvestment of dividends. The total return values do not include dividends declared, but not paid, during the period.
-28-
2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | ||||||||||||||||||
DiamondRock Hospitality Company Total Return | $100.00 | $172.80 | $244.82 | $203.52 | $196.33 | $260.66 | |||||||||||||||||
RMZ Total Return | $100.00 | $128.61 | $165.23 | $179.60 | $211.50 | $216.73 | |||||||||||||||||
S&P 500 Total Return | $100.00 | $126.46 | $145.51 | $148.59 | $172.37 | $228.19 | |||||||||||||||||
This performance graph shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or incorporated by reference into any filing by us under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing.
In order to maintain our qualification as a REIT, we must make distributions to our stockholders each year in an amount equal to at least:
• | 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding net capital gains, plus |
• | 90% of the excess of our net income from foreclosure property over the tax imposed on such income by the Code, minus |
• | any excess non-cash income. |
We generally pay quarterly cash dividends to common stockholders at the discretion of our board of directors. The following table sets forth the dividends on our common shares for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012.
Payment Date | Record Date | Dividend per Share | ||||
April 4, 2012 | March 23, 2012 | $0.080 | ||||
May 29, 2012 | May 15, 2012 | $0.080 | ||||
September 19, 2012 | September 7, 2012 | $0.080 | ||||
January 10, 2013 | December 31, 2012 | $0.080 | ||||
April 12, 2013 | March 28, 2013 | $0.085 | ||||
July 11, 2013 | June 28, 2013 | $0.085 | ||||
October 10, 2013 | September 30, 2013 | $0.085 | ||||
January 10, 2014 | December 31, 2013 | $0.085 | ||||
As of February 21, 2014, there were 11 record holders of our common stock and we believe we have more than one thousand beneficial holders. In order to comply with certain requirements related to our qualification as a REIT, our charter, subject to certain exceptions, limits the number of common shares that may be owned by any single person or affiliated group to 9.8% of the outstanding common shares.
Equity compensation plan information. The following table sets forth information regarding securities authorized for issuance under our equity compensation plan, the 2004 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, as amended, as of December 31, 2013. See Note 7 to the accompanying consolidated financial statements for additional information regarding our 2004 Stock Option and Incentive Plan, as amended.
Plan Category | Number of Securities to be Issued Upon Exercise of Outstanding Options, Warrants and Rights | Weighted-Average Exercise Price of Outstanding Options, Warrants and Rights | Number of Securities Remaining Available for Future Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans (Excluding Securities Reflected in Column (a)) | |||
(a) | (b) | (c) | ||||
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders | 262,461 | $12.59 | 4,519,221 | |||
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders | — | — | — | |||
Total | 262,461 | $12.59 | 4,519,221 | |||
-29-
Repurchases of equity securities. During the year ended December 31, 2013, certain of our employees surrendered 163,496 shares of common stock to the Company as payment for taxes in connection with the vesting of restricted stock. On August 5, 2013, our board of directors voted to authorize us to purchase up to $100 million in shares of our common stock. We have not repurchased any shares of our common stock under the program.
-30-
Item 6. Selected Financial Data
The selected historical financial information as of and for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009 has been derived from our audited historical financial statements. The selected historical financial data should be read in conjunction with “Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” the consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2013 and 2012 and for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, and the related notes contained elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||
2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||||||||
(in thousands, except for per share data) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Revenues: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Rooms | $ | 558,751 | $ | 509,902 | $ | 416,028 | $ | 334,365 | $ | 299,287 | ||||||||||
Food and beverage | 193,043 | 174,963 | 154,006 | 143,690 | 131,709 | |||||||||||||||
Other | 47,894 | 42,022 | 30,049 | 25,558 | 27,144 | |||||||||||||||
Total revenues | 799,688 | 726,887 | 600,083 | 503,613 | 458,140 | |||||||||||||||
Operating expenses: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Rooms | 151,040 | 135,437 | 111,378 | 89,131 | 80,531 | |||||||||||||||
Food and beverage | 136,454 | 124,890 | 110,013 | 101,945 | 97,071 | |||||||||||||||
Other hotel expenses and management fees | 310,069 | 278,572 | 234,860 | 198,646 | 185,155 | |||||||||||||||
Impairment losses | — | 30,844 | — | — | 2,542 | |||||||||||||||
Hotel acquisition costs | — | 10,591 | 2,521 | 1,436 | — | |||||||||||||||
Corporate expenses(1) | 23,072 | 21,095 | 21,247 | 16,384 | 18,317 | |||||||||||||||
Depreciation and amortization | 103,895 | 97,004 | 82,187 | 71,240 | 65,612 | |||||||||||||||
Total operating expenses | 724,530 | 698,433 | 562,206 | 478,782 | 449,228 | |||||||||||||||
Operating income | 75,158 | 28,454 | 37,877 | 24,831 | 8,912 | |||||||||||||||
Interest income | (6,328 | ) | (305 | ) | (612 | ) | (781 | ) | (331 | ) | ||||||||||
Interest expense | 57,279 | 53,771 | 45,406 | 35,425 | 40,400 | |||||||||||||||
Loss (gain) on early extinguishment of debt | 1,492 | (144 | ) | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||
Income (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes | 22,715 | (24,868 | ) | (6,917 | ) | (9,813 | ) | (31,157 | ) | |||||||||||
Income tax benefit (expense) | 1,113 | 6,793 | (2,521 | ) | (674 | ) | 17,713 | |||||||||||||
Income (loss) from continuing operations | 23,828 | (18,075 | ) | (9,438 | ) | (10,487 | ) | (13,444 | ) | |||||||||||
Income from discontinued operations | 25,237 | 1,483 | 1,760 | 1,315 | 2,354 | |||||||||||||||
Net income (loss) | $ | 49,065 | $ | (16,592 | ) | $ | (7,678 | ) | $ | (9,172 | ) | $ | (11,090 | ) | ||||||
Earnings (loss) per share: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Continuing operations | $ | 0.12 | $ | (0.10 | ) | $ | (0.06 | ) | $ | (0.07 | ) | $ | (0.12 | ) | ||||||
Discontinued operations | 0.13 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | |||||||||||||||
Basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share | $ | 0.25 | $ | (0.09 | ) | $ | (0.05 | ) | $ | (0.06 | ) | $ | (0.10 | ) | ||||||
Other data: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Dividends declared per common share(2) | $ | 0.34 | $ | 0.32 | $ | 0.32 | $ | — | $ | 0.33 | ||||||||||
FFO(3) | $ | 131,987 | $ | 120,961 | $ | 91,546 | $ | 79,292 | $ | 74,181 | ||||||||||
Adjusted FFO(3) | $ | 139,301 | $ | 140,163 | $ | 103,643 | $ | 90,297 | $ | 82,778 | ||||||||||
EBITDA(4) | $ | 211,983 | $ | 134,928 | $ | 149,676 | $ | 127,458 | $ | 102,217 | ||||||||||
Adjusted EBITDA(4) | $ | 196,862 | $ | 189,714 | $ | 162,146 | $ | 138,463 | $ | 113,356 | ||||||||||
-31-
As of December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||
2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||||||||
(in thousands) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Balance sheet data: | ||||||||||||||||||||
Property and equipment, net | $ | 2,567,533 | $ | 2,611,454 | $ | 2,234,504 | $ | 2,071,603 | $ | 1,862,087 | ||||||||||
Cash and cash equivalents | 144,584 | 9,623 | 26,291 | 84,201 | 177,380 | |||||||||||||||
Total assets | 3,047,772 | 2,944,042 | 2,798,635 | 2,414,609 | 2,215,491 | |||||||||||||||
Total debt | 1,091,861 | 988,731 | 1,042,933 | 780,880 | 786,777 | |||||||||||||||
Total other liabilities | 275,220 | 260,198 | 253,545 | 220,212 | 253,208 | |||||||||||||||
Stockholders' equity | 1,680,691 | 1,695,113 | 1,502,157 | 1,413,517 | 1,175,506 | |||||||||||||||
_________
(1) | Corporate expenses for the year ended December 31, 2013 include approximately $3.1 million of costs related to the departure of our former President and Chief Operating Officer. Corporate expenses for the year ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 include legal fees of approximately $2.5 million and $2.3 million, respectively, related to the Allerton bankruptcy proceedings. Corporate expenses for the year ended December 31, 2011 include an accrual of $1.7 million for the settlement of the Los Angeles Airport Marriott litigation. Corporate expenses for the year ended December 31, 2009 include approximately $2.6 million of costs related to the retirement of our prior Executive Chairman and the termination of our prior Executive Vice President and General Counsel. |
(2) | We paid 90% of the 2009 dividend in shares of common stock and the remainder in cash as permitted by the Internal Revenue Service's Revenue Procedure 2009-15. All of our other dividends have been paid in cash. |
(3) | See "Non-GAAP Financial Measures" below in "Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" for a detailed description of FFO and Adjusted FFO and a discussion of why we believe that they are useful supplemental measures of our operating performance. The following is a reconciliation of our U.S. GAAP net income (loss) to FFO and Adjusted FFO. |
Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||
2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||||||||
(in thousands) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Net income (loss) | $ | 49,065 | $ | (16,592 | ) | $ | (7,678 | ) | $ | (9,172 | ) | $ | (11,090 | ) | ||||||
Real estate related depreciation (a) | 105,655 | 101,498 | 99,224 | 88,464 | 82,729 | |||||||||||||||
Impairment losses (b) | — | 45,534 | — | — | 2,542 | |||||||||||||||
Gain on sale of hotel properties, net | (22,733 | ) | (9,479 | ) | — | — | — | |||||||||||||
FFO | 131,987 | 120,961 | 91,546 | 79,292 | 74,181 | |||||||||||||||
Non-cash ground rent | 6,787 | 6,694 | 6,996 | 7,092 | 7,720 | |||||||||||||||
Non-cash amortization of favorable and unfavorable contracts, net | (1,487 | ) | (1,653 | ) | (1,860 | ) | (1,771 | ) | (1,720 | ) | ||||||||||
Loss (gain) on early extinguishment of debt | 1,492 | (144 | ) | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||
Acquisition costs | — | 10,591 | 2,521 | 1,436 | — | |||||||||||||||
Reversal of previously recognized Allerton income | (1,163 | ) | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||
Allerton loan interest payments | — | — | 3,163 | 2,650 | — | |||||||||||||||
Allerton loan legal fees | — | 2,493 | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||
Severance costs | 3,065 | — | — | — | 2,597 | |||||||||||||||
Write-off of key money | (1,082 | ) | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||
Franchise termination fee | — | 750 | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||
Litigation settlement | — | — | 1,650 | — | — | |||||||||||||||
Hurricane remediation expense at Frenchman's Reef | — | — | — | 1,598 | — | |||||||||||||||
Fair value adjustments to debt instruments | (298 | ) | 471 | (373 | ) | — | — | |||||||||||||
Adjusted FFO | $ | 139,301 | $ | 140,163 | $ | 103,643 | $ | 90,297 | $ | 82,778 | ||||||||||
-32-
(a) | Amounts include depreciation expense reported in discontinued operations as follows: $1.8 million in 2013, $4.5 million in 2012, $17.0 million in 2011, $17.2 million in 2010, and $17.1 million in 2009. | |
(b) | Amounts include impairment losses reported in discontinued operations of $14.7 million in 2012. | |
(4) | See "Non-GAAP Financial Measures" below in "Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" for a detailed description of EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA and why we believe that they are useful supplemental measures of our operating performance. The following is a reconciliation of our U.S. GAAP net income (loss) to EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA. | |
Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||||||||||||
2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | ||||||||||||||||
(in thousands) | ||||||||||||||||||||
Net income (loss) | $ | 49,065 | $ | (16,592 | ) | $ | (7,678 | ) | $ | (9,172 | ) | $ | (11,090 | ) | ||||||
Interest expense (a) | 57,279 | 56,068 | 55,507 | 45,524 | 51,609 | |||||||||||||||
Income tax (benefit) expense (b) | (16 | ) | (6,046 | ) | 2,623 | 2,642 | (21,031 | ) | ||||||||||||
Real estate related depreciation (c) | 105,655 | 101,498 | 99,224 | 88,464 | 82,729 | |||||||||||||||
EBITDA | 211,983 | 134,928 | 149,676 | 127,458 | 102,217 | |||||||||||||||
Non-cash ground rent | 6,787 | 6,694 | 6,996 | 7,092 | 7,720 | |||||||||||||||
Non-cash amortization of favorable and unfavorable contracts, net | (1,487 | ) | (1,653 | ) | (1,860 | ) | (1,771 | ) | (1,720 | ) | ||||||||||
Gain on sale of hotel properties, net | (22,733 | ) | (9,479 | ) | — | — | — | |||||||||||||
Loss (gain) on early extinguishment of debt | 1,492 | (144 | ) | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||
Acquisition costs | — | 10,591 | 2,521 | 1,436 | — | |||||||||||||||
Reversal of previously recognized Allerton income | (1,163 | ) | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||
Allerton loan interest payments | — | — | 3,163 | 2,650 | — | |||||||||||||||
Allerton loan legal fees | — | 2,493 | — | — | ||||||||||||||||
Severance costs | 3,065 | — | — | — | 2,597 | |||||||||||||||
Write-off of key money | (1,082 | ) | — | — | — | — | ||||||||||||||
Franchise termination fee | — | 750 | — | — | — | |||||||||||||||
Litigation settlement | — | — | 1,650 | — | — | |||||||||||||||
Hurricane remediation expense at Frenchman's Reef | — | — | — | 1,598 | — | |||||||||||||||
Impairment losses (d) | — | 45,534 | — | — | 2,542 | |||||||||||||||
Adjusted EBITDA | $ | 196,862 | $ | 189,714 | $ | 162,146 | $ | 138,463 | $ | 113,356 | ||||||||||
(a) | Amounts include interest expense reported in discontinued operations as follows: $2.3 million in 2012, $10.1 million in 2011 and 2010, and $11.2 million in 2009. | |
(b) | Amounts include income tax expense (benefit) reported in discontinued operations as follows: $1.1 million in 2013, $0.7 million in 2012, $0.1 million in 2011, $2.0 million in 2010, and ($3.3) million in 2009. | |
(c) | Amounts include depreciation expense reported in discontinued operations as follows: $1.8 million in 2013, $4.5 million in 2012, $17.0 million in 2011, $17.2 million in 2010, and $17.1 million in 2009. | |
(d) | Amounts include impairment losses reported in discontinued operations of $14.7 million in 2012. | |
-33-
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto included elsewhere in this report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements about our business. These statements are based on current expectations and assumptions that are subject to risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially because of factors discussed in "Special Note About Forward-Looking Statements" and "Risk Factors" contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K an in our other reports that we file from time to time with the SEC.
Overview
DiamondRock Hospitality Company is a lodging-focused Maryland corporation operating as a real estate investment trust (REIT) for federal income tax purposes. As of December 31, 2013, we owned a portfolio of 26 premium hotels and resorts that contain 11,121 guest rooms. We also hold the senior note on a mortgage loan secured by an additional hotel and have the right to acquire, upon completion, a hotel under development. As an owner, rather than an operator, of lodging properties, we receive all of the operating profits or losses generated by our hotels after the payment of fees due to hotel managers, which are calculated based on the revenues and profitability of each hotel.
Our vision is to be the premier allocator of capital in the lodging industry. Our mission is to deliver long-term stockholder returns through a combination of dividends and enduring capital appreciation. Our strategy is to utilize disciplined capital allocation and focus on the acquisition, ownership and innovative asset management of high quality lodging properties in North American markets with superior growth prospects and high barriers to entry.
We differentiate ourselves from our competitors by adhering to three basic principles in executing our strategy:
• | owning high-quality urban and destination resort hotels; |
• | implementing innovative asset management strategies; and |
• | maintaining a conservative capital structure. |
Our portfolio is concentrated in key gateway cities and destination resort locations. Each of our hotels is managed by a third party and most are operated under a brand owned by one of the leading global lodging brand companies (Marriott International, Inc. (“Marriott”), Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. (“Starwood”) and Hilton Worldwide (“Hilton”)).
We critically evaluate each of our hotels to ensure that we own a portfolio of hotels that conforms to our vision, supports our mission and corresponds with our strategy. On a regular basis, we analyze our portfolio to identify opportunities to invest capital in certain projects or market non-core assets for sale in order to increase our portfolio quality.
We are committed to a conservative capital structure with prudent leverage. We regularly assess the availability and affordability of capital in order to maximize the stockholder value and minimize enterprise risk. In addition, we are committed to following sound corporate governance practices and being open and transparent in our communications with stockholders.
High Quality Urban- and Destination Resort-Focused Branded Hotel Real Estate
As of December 31, 2013, we owned 26 premium hotels and resorts throughout North America and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Our hotels and resorts are primarily categorized as upper upscale as defined by Smith Travel Research and are generally located in high barrier-to-entry markets with multiple demand generators.
Our properties are concentrated in key gateway cities (primarily New York City, Chicago, Boston and Los Angeles) and in destination resort locations (such as the U.S. Virgin Islands and Vail, Colorado). We consider lodging properties located in gateway cities and resort destinations to be the most capable of creating dynamic cash flow growth and achieving superior long-term capital appreciation. We also believe that these locations are better insulated from new supply due to relatively high barriers-to-entry, including expensive construction costs and limited development sites.
We have been executing on our strategy to elevate and enhance our hotel portfolio by actively recycling capital early in the recovery phase of this lodging cycle. Our efforts have led to the repositioning of our portfolio through the acquisition of $1.3 billion of urban hotels that align with our strategic goals while disposing of more than $375 million in slower-growth, non-core hotels. These acquisitions increased our urban exposure with additional hotels in cities such as New York, San Francisco, Boston,
-34-
Denver, Washington D.C. and San Diego. Over 85% of our portfolio EBITDA is currently derived from core urban and resort hotels. Our capital recycling program over the past three years also achieved several other important strategic portfolio goals that include improving our portfolio’s geographic and brand diversity and achieving a mix of 50 percent brand-managed and 50 percent third-party managed hotels in our portfolio.
Moreover, the primary focus of our acquisitions over the past three years was on hotels that we believe presented unique value-add opportunities, such as repositioning through a change in brand or comprehensive renovation or changing the third-party hotel manager to a more efficient operator. For example, we executed a $140 million capital expenditure program in 2013, which included major capital investments at the Lexington Hotel New York, Courtyard Manhattan/Fifth Avenue, Courtyard Manhattan/Midtown East, Westin Washington D.C. City Center, Westin San Diego, Hilton Boston Downtown and Hilton Minneapolis.
We leverage some of the leading global hotel brands with all but two of our hotels flagged under a brand owned by Marriott, Hilton or Starwood. We believe that premier global hotel brands create significant value as a result of each brand's ability to produce incremental revenue through their strong reservation and rewards systems and sales organizations with the result being that branded hotels are able to generate greater profits than similar unbranded hotels. We are primarily interested in owning hotels that are currently operated under, or can be converted to, a globally-recognized brand. We would also consider opportunities to acquire other non-branded hotels located in premier or unique markets where we believe that the returns on such a hotel may be higher than if the hotel were operated under a globally-recognized brand.
Innovative Asset Management
We believe we can create significant value in our portfolio through innovative asset management strategies such as rebranding, renovating and repositioning and we engage in a process of regular evaluations of our portfolio in order to determine if there are opportunities to employ these value-add strategies.
We realized numerous asset management achievements in 2013, including: the execution of a $140 million capital expenditure program; the implementation of asset management strategies in order to improve hotel revenues and contain costs; and proactively managing the third-party at each of our properties to maximize hotel operating performance. Our asset management team is focused on improving hotel profit margins through revenue management strategies and cost control programs. Our asset management team also focuses on identifying new and potential value creation opportunities across our portfolio, including adding new resort fees, creating incremental guest rooms, leasing out restaurants to more profitable third party operators, converting unused space to revenue-generating meeting space, and implementing programs to reduce energy usage.
Our senior management team has established a broad network of hotel industry contacts and relationships, including relationships with hotel owners, financiers, operators, project managers and contractors and other key industry participants. We use our broad network of hotel industry contacts and relationships to maximize the value of our hotels. Under the federal income tax rules governing REITs, we are required to engage a hotel manager that is an eligible independent contractor to manage each of our hotels pursuant to a management agreement with one of our subsidiaries. We strive to negotiate management agreements that give us the right to exert influence over the management of our properties, annual budgets and all capital expenditures (all, to the extent permitted under the REIT rules), and then to use those rights to continually monitor and improve the performance of our properties. We cooperatively partner with our hotel managers in an attempt to increase operating results and long-term asset values at our hotels. In addition to working directly with the personnel at our hotels, our senior management team also has long-standing professional relationships with our hotel managers' senior executives, and we work directly with these senior executives to improve the performance of the hotels in our portfolio that they manage.
Conservative Capital Structure
We believe that a conservative capital structure maximizes investment capacity while reducing enterprise risk. We currently employ a low-risk and straight-forward capital structure with no corporate level debt, preferred equity, or convertible bonds. Moreover, we have significant balance sheet flexibility with no outstanding borrowings under our $200 million senior unsecured credit facility as of December 31, 2013, as well as approximately half of our hotels being unencumbered by mortgage debt. We believe it is imprudent to increase the inherent risk of highly cyclical lodging fundamentals through the use of a highly leveraged capital structure.
We believe our strategically designed capital structure is a value creation tool that can be used over the entire lodging cycle. Specifically, we believe lower leverage benefits us in the following ways:
• | provides capacity to fund attractive early-cycle acquisitions; |
-35-
• | provides optionality to fund acquisitions with the most efficient funding source; |
• | enhances our ability to maintain a sustainable dividend; |
• | enables us to opportunistically repurchase shares during periods of stock price dislocation; and |
• | provides capacity to fund late-cycle capital needs. |
Our current debt outstanding consists primarily of fixed interest rate mortgage debt. We have no outstanding borrowings under our senior unsecured credit facility, which bears interest at what we believe is an attractive floating rate. We prefer that a significant portion of our portfolio remains unencumbered by debt in order to provide maximum balance sheet flexibility. In addition, to the extent that we incur additional debt, our preference is non-recourse secured mortgage debt. We expect that our strategy will enable us to maintain a balance sheet with an appropriate amount of debt throughout all phases of the lodging cycle.
We have mortgage debt maturities that start in late 2014, with significant maturities in 2015 (approximately $230 million) and 2016 (approximately $305 million). We anticipate addressing these maturities, as well as other capital needs, with a combination of the following:
• | refinancing proceeds on existing encumbered hotels; |
• | borrowing capacity on our existing unencumbered hotels; |
• | proceeds from the disposition of non-core hotels; |
• | capacity on our $200 million senior unsecured credit facility; and |
• | annual cash flow from operations. |
We prefer a relatively simple but efficient capital structure. We have not invested in joint ventures and have not issued any operating partnership units or preferred stock. We structure our hotel acquisitions to be straightforward and fit within our conservative capital structure; however, we will consider a more complex transaction if we believe that the projected returns to our stockholders will significantly exceed the returns that would otherwise be available.
Key Indicators of Financial Condition and Operating Performance
We use a variety of operating and other information to evaluate the financial condition and operating performance of our business. These key indicators include financial information that is prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP, as well as other financial information that is not prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. In addition, we use other information that may not be financial in nature, including statistical information and comparative data. We use this information to measure the performance of individual hotels, groups of hotels and/or our business as a whole. We periodically compare historical information to our internal budgets as well as industry-wide information. These key indicators include:
• | Occupancy percentage; |
• | Average Daily Rate (or ADR); |
• | Revenue per Available Room (or RevPAR); |
• | Earnings Before Interest, Income Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization (or EBITDA) and Adjusted EBITDA; and |
• | Funds From Operations (or FFO) and Adjusted FFO. |
Occupancy, ADR and RevPAR are commonly used measures within the hotel industry to evaluate operating performance. RevPAR, which is calculated as the product of ADR and occupancy percentage, is an important statistic for monitoring operating performance at the individual hotel level and across our business as a whole. We evaluate individual hotel RevPAR performance on an absolute basis with comparisons to budget and prior periods, as well as on a company-wide and regional basis. ADR and RevPAR include only room revenue. Room revenue comprised approximately 70% of total revenues for the year ended December 31, 2013 and is dictated by demand, as measured by occupancy percentage, pricing, as measured by ADR, and our available supply of hotel rooms.
-36-
Our ADR, occupancy percentage and RevPAR performance may be impacted by macroeconomic factors such as U.S. economic conditions generally, regional and local employment growth, personal income and corporate earnings, office vacancy rates and business relocation decisions, airport and other business and leisure travel, new hotel construction and the pricing strategies of competitors. In addition, our ADR, occupancy percentage and RevPAR performance is dependent on the continued success of our hotels' global brands.
We also use EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA, FFO and Adjusted FFO as measures of the financial performance of our business. See “Non-GAAP Financial Measures.”
Overview of 2013
The recovery in the lodging industry continued during 2013 with demand increasing 2.2% and many markets returning to prior peak occupancy levels. Importantly, new hotel supply remained constrained, increasing only 0.7%, which is less than half the historical average. This positive supply/demand imbalance powered industry RevPAR growth of 5.4%.
Key highlights for 2013 include the following:
Hotel Financings. We raised $165 million through three separate secured financings during 2013. The financings include (i) a $31 million mortgage loan secured by The Lodge at Sonoma Renaissance Resort & Spa with a term of ten years and a fixed interest rate of 3.96% (ii) a $71 million mortgage loan secured by the Westin San Diego with a term of ten years and a fixed interest rate of 3.94% and (iii) a $63 million mortgage loan secured by the Salt Lake City Marriott Downtown with a term of seven years and a fixed interest rate of 4.25%. The loans are property-specific and non-recourse to the Company subject to standard exceptions. As part of the financing of the Salt Lake City Marriott Downtown, we prepaid the $27.3 million mortgage loan previously secured by the hotel through defeasance, which had a maturity date of January 2015. The cost to defease the loan was approximately $1.5 million.
Allerton Loan. We closed on the settlement of the bankruptcy and related litigation involving our senior mortgage loan secured by the Allerton Hotel, receiving a $5.0 million principal payment and a new $66.0 million mortgage loan. We received an additional principal payment of $1.5 million in May 2013.
Non-Core Hotel Disposition. We sold the 487-room Torrance Marriott South Bay to an unaffiliated third party for a contractual sales price of $74 million on November 21, 2013. We recognized a gain on the sale of $22.7 million, which is reported in discontinued operations.
Chief Operating Officer. John L. Williams departed from his position as President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company effective May 1, 2013. In connection with his departure from the Company, we recorded a severance cost of approximately $3.1 million, which is reflected in corporate expenses on the accompanying consolidated statement of operations. On April 1, 2013, Robert D. Tanenbaum joined the Company as Executive Vice President, Asset Management and was appointed Chief Operating Officer effective May 1, 2013.
Outlook for 2014
We believe we are in the middle of a multi-year lodging recovery cycle. Hotel supply growth has flattened in most markets. In 2013, we experienced increased travel demand, leading to RevPAR gains due more from increases in room rates than from growth in occupancy and we expect this trend to continue in 2014. Further, we expect our newly renovated hotels to outperform the market in 2014 due both to an enhanced product and limited disruption.
Results of Operations
The following table sets forth certain operating information for each of the hotels we owned as of December 31, 2013.
-37-
Property | Location | Number of Rooms | Occupancy (%) | ADR($) | RevPAR($) | % Change from 2012 RevPAR (1) | |||||||||||||
Chicago Marriott | Chicago, Illinois | 1,198 | 76.2 | % | $ | 205.83 | $ | 156.86 | 5.4 | % | |||||||||
Los Angeles Airport Marriott | Los Angeles, California | 1,004 | 86.5 | % | 113.33 | 98.09 | 3.6 | % | |||||||||||
Hilton Minneapolis | Minneapolis, Minnesota | 821 | 72.3 | % | 145.56 | 105.21 | 1.2 | % | |||||||||||
Westin Boston Waterfront Hotel | Boston, Massachusetts | 793 | 74.5 | % | 207.60 | 154.60 | 3.4 | % | |||||||||||
Lexington Hotel New York | New York, New York | 725 | 62.4 | % | 224.92 | 140.26 | (28.1 | )% | |||||||||||
Salt Lake City Marriott Downtown | Salt Lake City, Utah | 510 | 67.1 | % | 142.26 | 95.51 | 7.2 | % | |||||||||||
Renaissance Worthington | Fort Worth, Texas | 504 | 65.4 | % | 170.73 | 111.70 | 1.6 | % | |||||||||||
Frenchman’s Reef & Morning Star Marriott Beach Resort | St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands | 502 | 82.1 | % | 239.69 | 196.78 | 9.6 | % | |||||||||||
Orlando Airport Marriott | Orlando, Florida | 485 | 75.5 | % | 99.85 | 75.38 | 0.5 | % | |||||||||||
Westin San Diego (2) | San Diego, California | 436 | 82.7 | % | 153.50 | 126.98 | 7.3 | % | |||||||||||
Westin Washington, D.C. City Center (2) | Washington, D.C. | 406 | 73.5 | % | 192.13 | 141.19 | (0.5 | )% | |||||||||||
Oak Brook Hills Resort Chicago | Oak Brook, Illinois | 386 | 56.8 | % | 122.44 | 69.55 | 2.1 | % | |||||||||||
Hilton Boston Downtown (2) | Boston, Massachusetts | 362 | 80.4 | % | 226.68 | 182.26 | 8.7 | % | |||||||||||
Vail Marriott Mountain Resort & Spa | Vail, Colorado | 344 | 67.7 | % | 243.94 | 165.25 | 15.0 | % | |||||||||||
Marriott Atlanta Alpharetta | Atlanta, Georgia | 318 | 73.8 | % | 148.12 | 109.37 | 18.7 | % | |||||||||||
Courtyard Manhattan/Midtown East | New York, New York | 317 | 82.3 | % | 275.73 | 226.81 | (3.0 | )% | |||||||||||
Conrad Chicago | Chicago, Illinois | 311 | 81.6 | % | 217.76 | 177.61 | 3.8 | % | |||||||||||
Bethesda Marriott Suites | Bethesda, Maryland | 272 | 61.9 | % | 161.18 | 99.71 | (7.4 | )% | |||||||||||
Hilton Burlington (2) | Burlington, Vermont | 258 | 74.1 | % | 159.43 | 118.16 | 2.3 | % | |||||||||||
JW Marriott Denver at Cherry Creek | Denver, Colorado | 196 | 80.4 | % | 239.27 | 192.39 | 10.8 | % | |||||||||||
Courtyard Manhattan/Fifth Avenue | New York, New York | 185 | 80.1 | % | 277.14 | 221.92 | (11.7 | )% | |||||||||||
The Lodge at Sonoma, a Renaissance Resort & Spa | Sonoma, California | 182 | 74.2 | % | 254.13 | 188.52 | 10.9 | % | |||||||||||
Courtyard Denver Downtown | Denver, Colorado | 177 | 83.4 | % | 168.42 | 140.47 | 4.2 | % | |||||||||||
Hilton Garden Inn Chelsea/New York City | New York, New York | 169 | 95.9 | % | 231.99 | 222.51 | 6.3 | % | |||||||||||
Renaissance Charleston | Charleston, South Carolina | 166 | 87.5 | % | 191.27 | 167.31 | 8.9 | % | |||||||||||
Hotel Rex (2) | San Francisco, California | 94 | 84.4 | % | 187.88 | 158.66 | 4.6 | % | |||||||||||
Total/Weighted Average | 11,121 | 75.1 | % | $ | 183.85 | $ | 138.11 | 1.4 | % | ||||||||||
________________
(1) | The percentage change from 2012 RevPAR reflects the comparable period in 2012 to our 2013 ownership period. |
(2) | The hotel was acquired during 2012. |
Comparison of the Year Ended December 31, 2013 to the Year Ended December 31, 2012
Revenue. Revenue consists primarily of the room, food and beverage and other operating revenues from our hotels, as follows (in millions):
Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||
2013 | 2012 | % Change | ||||||||
Rooms | $ | 558.8 | $ | 509.9 | 9.6 | % | ||||
Food and beverage | 193.0 | 175.0 | 10.3 | |||||||
Other | 47.9 | 42.0 | 14.0 | |||||||
Total revenues | $ | 799.7 | $ | 726.9 | 10.0 | % | ||||
Our total revenues from continuing operations increased $72.8 million from $726.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 to $799.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, which includes $55.7 million of revenues contributed by the five hotels we acquired in 2012. Excluding the impact of our 2012 acquisitions, our total revenues increased $17.1 million, or 2.4%.
The following pro forma key hotel operating statistics for our hotels reported in continuing operations for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012 include the prior year operating statistics for the comparable period to our 2013 ownership period.
-38-
Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||
2013 | 2012 | % Change | ||||||||
Occupancy % | 75.1 | % | 76.3 | % | (1.2) percentage points | |||||
ADR | $ | 183.85 | $ | 178.50 | 3.0 | % | ||||
RevPAR | $ | 138.11 | $ | 136.27 | 1.4 | % | ||||
The increase in RevPAR was driven by a 3.0% growth in ADR, partially offset by a 1.2 percentage point decrease in occupancy. The decrease in occupancy is primarily due to disruption at our hotels under renovation during 2013, most notably the Lexington Hotel New York. The renovations displaced over 95,000 room nights during 2013. Despite the decrease in occupancy, our hotels generated total ADR growth of 3.0%. The ADR growth was experienced in all customer segments, particularly business transient.
Food and beverage revenues increased $18.0 million from 2012, which includes $7.6 million of food and beverage revenues contributed by the five hotels acquired in 2012. The remaining increase of $10.4 million at our comparable hotels was primarily driven by higher banquet revenue from both group business and local catering. Other revenues, which primarily represent spa, golf, parking and attrition and cancellation fees, increased $5.9 million, which includes $3.2 million of other revenues contributed by the five hotels we acquired during 2012. The remaining increase of $2.7 million at our comparable hotels was primarily driven by the implementation of resort fees at three of our hotels, as well as attrition and cancellation fees.
Hotel operating expenses. Our operating expenses from continuing operations for the years ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, respectively, consist of the following (in millions):
Year Ended December 31, | ||||||||||
2013 | 2012 | % Change | ||||||||
Rooms departmental expenses | $ | 151.0 | $ | 135.4 | 11.5 | % | ||||
Food and beverage departmental expenses | 136.5 | 124.9 | 9.3 | |||||||
Other departmental expenses | 21.9 | 19.4 | 12.9 | |||||||
General and administrative | 64.2 | 59.1 | 8.6 | |||||||
Utilities | 28.2 | 26.1 | 8.0 | |||||||
Repairs and maintenance | 36.8 | 32.4 | 13.6 | |||||||
Sales and marketing | 67.6 | 58.6 | 15.4 | |||||||
Base management fees | 19.3 | 18.8 | 2.7 | |||||||
Incentive management fees | 6.2 | 5.5 | 12.7 | |||||||
Property taxes | 40.0 | 33.2 | 20.5 | |||||||
Other fixed charges | 10.9 | 10.9 | — | |||||||
Ground rent—Contractual | 8.5 | 8.2 | 3.7 | |||||||
Ground rent—Non-cash | 6.5 | 6.4 | 1.6 | |||||||
Total hotel operating expenses | $ | 597.6 | $ | 538.9 | 10.9 | % | ||||
Our hotel operating expenses increased $58.7 million, or 10.9%, from $538.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012 to $597.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2013, which includes $37.5 million of hotel operating expenses contributed by the five hotels we acquired in 2012. The remaining increase of $21.2 million is primarily due to higher food and beverage costs and support costs, specifically repairs and maintenance and sales and marketing. Property taxes at our comparable hotels increased approximately $3.0 million, which is primarily due to significant increases in the county property tax rates at the Chicago Marriott and Conrad Chicago and a reassessment of the Vail Marriott Mountain Resort & Spa. Incentive management fees increased as a result of higher profits, as well as three additional hotels that earned incentive management fees in 2013.
Depreciation and amortization. Depreciation and amortization is recorded on our hotel buildings over 40 years for the periods subsequent to acquisition. Depreciable lives of hotel furniture, fixtures and equipment are estimated as the time period between the acquisition date and the date that the hotel furniture, fixtures and equipment will be replaced. Our depreciation and amortization expense increased $6.9 million from the year ended December 31, 2012 to the year ended December 31, 2013 due to our 2012 acquisitions and the significant renovations completed under our 2013 capital expenditure program.
-39-
Impairment losses. During the year ended December 31, 2012, we recorded an impairment loss of $30.4 million related to the Oak Brook Hills Resort. We also recorded an impairment loss of $0.5 million on the favorable leasehold asset related to our option to develop a hotel on an undeveloped parcel of land adjacent to the Westin Boston Waterfront Hotel. No impairment losses were recorded during the year ended December 31, 2013.
Corporate expenses. Corporate expenses principally consist of employee-related costs, including base payroll, bonus and restricted stock. Corporate expenses also include corporate operating costs, professional fees and directors’ fees. Our corporate expenses increased $2.0 million, from $21.1 million for the year December 31, 2012 to $23.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2013. The increase in corporate expenses is due primarily to $3.1 million in severance costs incurred in connection with the departure of our President and Chief Operating Officer in 2013, partially offset by lower legal fees as a result of the settlement of the Allerton bankruptcy proceedings and related litigation in January 2013.
Hotel acquisition costs. Hotel acquisition costs incurred during the year ended December 31, 2012 were related to the five hotels we acquired during 2012.
Interest expense. Our interest expense was $57.3 million and $53.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012, respectively. The increase in interest expense is primarily due to the new mortgage loans we entered into in late 2012 and 2013. The increase is partially offset by lower interest expense on our credit facility due to lower borrowings in 2013 and interest rate cap fair value adjustments.
The interest expense for the years ended December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2012 is comprised of the following (in millions):
Year Ended December 31, | |||||||
2013 | 2012 | ||||||
Mortgage debt interest | $ | 54.9 | $ | 48.7 | |||
Credit facility interest and unused fees | 1.0 | 2.7 | |||||
Amortization of deferred financing costs and debt premium | 2.7 | 2.7 | |||||
Capitalized interest | (1.4 | ) | (1.2 | ) | |||
Interest rate cap fair value adjustment | 0.1 | ||||||