|
Biz Links Previous June May April March January Factoids June Part 2 June Part 1 May Part 2 May Part 1 Q2-02 Index Q1-02 Index Q4-01 Index Q3-01 Index Q2-01 Index Q1-01 Index REIT Links Globe St. Reis ReBuz RSR NaREIT NREI Property REIT Week NAIOP ShopCntrWrld |
Healthcare REITs are typically divided into two groups: hospital operators and housing-related operators. The hospital operators comprise both inpatient and outpatient centers and have traditionally been stable tenants. Excessive payout ratios have always been a concern for investors, and there some real "red flags" in the healthcare sector.
There are many potential positives to investing in the healthcare sector, not the least of which is the relatively high dividend yield. However, the risks associated with this sector are, in our opinion, potentially greater and much more difficult to judge than with any other REIT sector. The main concern is that the government may forget how badly it damaged the healthcare sector with its previous round of legislation and may revisit reimbursement cuts. Moody's Says REIT health sector outlook stable for 2002 John Kriz, managing director of Real Estate Finance at MoodyĖs said that the out-look for health care REITs and REOCs is stable for 2002,'Several REITs were successful at tapping both the equity and debt markets last year,' Kriz said. 'Healthcare REITs emerged as one of the stronger sectors in terms of equity performance in 2001.' Although the sector provided a stable investment, particularly during recent economic uncertainty, Kriz noted that investors may move away from defensive stocks in favor of more aggressive investments as the economy rebounds. Kriz stated that hospitals are stable, while medical office buildings may experience some softening. He noted that assisted living was a somewhat weaker portion of the sector, with excess supply emerging as the main issue.
"People used to view these as defensive, low volatility stocks, but lately they've been anything but," said Steve Sakwa, a Merrill Lynch real estate analyst. The volatility has done little to calm investors who thought that real estate would shelter them from a gyrating stock market. In the first half of this year, office REIT's lowered their 2002 earnings estimates by 4.3 percent, compared with negative revisions for the entire REIT market of 3 percent, said James Sullivan, an analyst at Prudential Securities. "That doesn't sound like a big difference," he said. "But remember, this reduces growth rates going forward." REIT's that own shopping malls are the only group that still trade at a premium to underlying assets, analysts say, but that could change if consumer spending slows.
So this year's trifling 714,538 square feet of completions in the first six months is on top of a huge new supply. An additional 1.1 million square feet of single-tenant retail space opened between January and June. But retailer closings - Kmart being the most notable - caused net leasing in the area to slip by almost 2 million square feet in the first six months. Vacancy rates have inched up almost 2 percentage points to an overall 11.9%. Retail vacancy rates are lowest in neighborhood shopping centers (10.3%) and highest in the malls (14.9%).
According to a study by Prudential Real Estate Investors expected to be released Wednesday, public entities last year owned about 12.5% of the $3 trillion U.S. commercial real-estate market the investment-management firm covers, down from 12.7% in 2000. Public ownership of malls last year fell 1.4 percentage points from 2000 to 33%. Public holdings of warehouses declined one point to 9.7%, hotels fell 0.9 point to 17%, and other retail besides malls declined 0.3 point to 12.5%. Public ownership of apartments fell for the third straight year, dropping 0.3 point to 8.5%. Only the office sector saw a gain in public ownership in 2001, up 0.2 point to 7.6%. In the first half of this year, REITs and publicly traded real-estate operating companies purchased nearly $3 billion more in properties than they sold. Preliminary data since July indicate that REITs may add an additional $2.4 billion of assets in the current quarter. "REITs are adding to the competition for high-quality assets," says Robert M. White Jr., president of Real Capital Analytics, "and that's resulting in a fairly competitive market. It's affecting the pricing of properties." As their stock prices have risen over the past two years, REITs have increased their capital-raising activities. They have raised $13 million in proceeds so far this year through equity and debt offerings and one IPO, that of Heritage Property Investment Trust Inc., in April, according to the NAREIT. They raised $18.8 million last year, up from $10 million in 2000. Increased public ownership of real estate means individuals can own a greater share of U.S. property through the stock of public companies. Stan Ross, chairman of the Lusk Center for Real Estate at the University of Southern California, based in Los Angeles, says it can give the industry more transparency, as public owners have to report key figures every quarter while private owners aren't required to disclose anything about their operations or properties.
Those new investors began bidding on office buildings, sometimes paying record prices for them, but only in Washington, D.C., midtown Manhattan and parts of Chicago and Los Angeles, where some leasing is taking place and where rents are considered stable. The investors are looking for buildings with healthy tenants and leases that don't expire for three years. In most of the rest of the country, there's very little, if any, buying interest. Pension funds found their assets overallocated in real estate, thanks to the plummeting stock market, and their interest was further dampened by gaping vacancies afflicting most cities and by uncertainty about when companies would begin renting more space. Today's new investors consider real estate's historical returns of about 8% attractive in light of the stock market's doldrums. And with debt so cheap, many buyers can leverage their acquisitions and generate even higher yields. The amount of money available probably will convince more office owners that they should put their buildings on the market, and that already seems to be happening. A logical place for the capital to flow would be toward office buildings in distressed markets where buyers would expect deep discounts similar to those seen in the early 1990s. But so far building owners are holding tight -- because of cheap debt.
As a consequence, for the first time since the late 1980s, real estate finds itself relatively awash in liquidity despite weak market fundamentals. It is a testimony to how different the current market cycle is from previous cycles and how little guidance the past offers that this liquidity is largely being spurned by real estate practitioners. This peculiar environment, together with continuing uncertainties about the economy and fears of terrorism and of war in the Middle East, makes it very difficult to predict the trajectory of the US real estate markets over the next six to twelve months. But there are important trends in the property and capital markets that offer opportunities and risks for real estate investors. With mortgage delinquencies at historically low levels, the CMBS market has become a refuge for fixed income investors fleeing the stunning implosions of companies like Enron and WorldCom. Even foreign investors have shown interest in CMBS issues in the United States, including fixed rate debt securities, which they have avoided in the past. Despite the strong demand from investors, CMBS issuance in the US this year is down nearly 16% from a year ago to just under $28 billion in the first half of 2002, according to Commercial Mortgage Alert. With such liquidity at a time that market fundamentals are weak, there is some concern that excess capital flows in the debt markets could cause underwriting standards to deteriorate, leading to distress in the property markets. Other risks include the unresolved terrorism insurance issue. The current trends in the REIT market closely parallel those in the debt markets. There is no shortage of liquidity in the REIT market, where investors have come looking for the relative safety of tangible assets and companies with transparent and relatively straightforward accounting, high current yields and safe dividends. Although REIT dividend yields have come down and are now slightly below their long-term average, yield spreads to Treasuries and to dividend yields on the S&P 500 are still above their long-term averages. Most REITs are now trading at a slight premium to net asset value (NAV), which is raising concerns about the sectorĖs valuation. As a group, however, REITs are still trading slightly below their long-term average price/FFO multiple. Not surprisingly, REITs have attracted significant capital inflows. According to AMG Data Services, fund flows into REIT mutual funds in the second quarter were over $1.4 billion, bringing the year-to- date total to over $2.4 billion. At their current rate, fund flows would exceed the record $4.1 billion set in 1997. Over the longer-term, greater acceptance of REITs by institutional investors and demographic trends both suggest that there will be continued interest in the sector. The addition of several real estate companies to the various S&P indexes over the past eighteen months, including the recent addition of Simon Property Group (SPG) to the S&P 500, has broadened and perhaps stabilized a more diverse investor base. In addition, REIT enthusiasts often cite the aging demographic profile of the United States as a reason to expect continued interest in the sector, on the theory that investments that offer a high current yield, like REITs, will become increasingly important in individual and institutional portfolios as a source of income as the population ages. In the current low interest rate environment, with dividends on stocks near historic lows and total returns on equities predicted to be anemic, real estate is one of the few investments where high current yields and some growth potential are available with relatively low risk.
The sector fell not because of any worsening of real estate fundamentals - which should improve as the economic recovery takes hold - but because it was caught up in the broad market sell-off. Another reason for the drop: Many general equity funds, which had moved into real estate to stabilize their portfolios in recent years, sold those stocks in July to meet a sudden rush of redemptions (fund managers typically choose winners to unload), says Steven Brown, portfolio manager of Neuberger Brown Real Estate Fund (NBRFX). Even though real estate stocks have rallied back in the past week, many are still selling at a discount to the value of their underlying holdings, says Michale Winer, portfolio manager of Third Avenue Real Estate Value (TAREX). But REITs are now selling at about 9 times earnings and have yields near 8%, which is near the bottom the sector reached in 1999, when real estate stocks were out of favor, says Brown.
Rents in Manhattan slipped to $50.26 a foot on average in June, down from $50.33 in May, and $57.95 a foot a year ago. Hardest hit was downtown Manhattan, where the vacancy rate jumped to 14.5% in June - its highest rate in five years. (In June 1997, the rate hit 14.8%). Average asking rents rose slightly to $40.46 a foot from $40.24 in May, but that's still short of the $44.57 a foot being commanded a year ago.
Faced with a dearth of new demand, the Greater Los Angeles-area office market saw the second-quarter vacancy rate increase to 17.13% from 16.29% the previous quarter, according to newly released figures from Insigna/ESG, a real estate brokerage and services firm. Although the office market has seen vacancies surge, the demand for industrial space has remained strong enough to keep vacancies in check. In Los Angeles County, for example, the industrial vacancy rate at the end of the second quarter hit 4.6%, up less than a percentage point from the beginning of the year and below year-ago levels, according to Cushman & Wakefield. Firms looking for distribution and warehousing space to service Southern California's huge population gobbled up 14.6 million square feet of industrial space in the Inland Empire alone, said Darla Longo, a broker at CB Richard Ellis. However, landlords have had to cut leasing rates by 10% or more from last year to keep up the pace of leasing, she said.
That compares with a 5.9% rate in the year-earlier second quarter. The drop in the latest quarter represents the first time the rate has fallen since the first quarter of 2001, when the recession began. The total amount of space newly occupied increased to 7.6 million square feet from 4.6 million in the first quarter and 3.5 million in the year-earlier second quarter. The 7.6 million square feet of so-called absorption was the highest level since the fourth quarter of 2000, when it was 17.5 million, Reis said. The gains came at a cost. As the economy weakened, landlords enticed potential and existing tenants by lowering rents. Rents fell 0.5% in the second quarter, slightly less than the first quarter's 0.7% decline. Rents rose 0.9% in the year-earlier second quarter. Reis expects the vacancy rate to rise to between 7% and 7.5% by the end of the year, mainly as a result of new construction. About 17 million square feet of neighborhood and community shopping-center space, categories that Reis said make up 71% of shopping-center space in the U.S., is expected to come on line in the third and fourth quarters. That number will exceed absorption, putting upward pressure on the vacancy rate.
Today, two-thirds of the retail sector consists of speculative-grade credits risk tenants - of which The Gap is now one - and the other one-third consists of supermarket chains. These high-yield retailers have been paying a huge premium to stay in the game since June 2000. Kmart has shot down the confidence of private capital investors, with its reorg looking more and more like a liquidation than a restructuring. And more recently, Rite Aid was caught again for accounting improprieties. (These last two retailers alone represent 5,400 strip center locations.) Accessing capital has placed weak retailers at the mercy of financial loan sharks and the rating agency mob. Consequently, borrowing costs have been exceeding returns on assets by a huge margin of 1,000+ basis points! At these spreads, retailers are operating sinkholes that lose two dollars for every one invested. Capital is critical to sustaining a competitive advantage. If internal cash flow coffers are depleted and unable to provide cheap funding, a fungus known as obsolescence creeps into information technology systems and store portfolios. As pointed out in "Junk Space Contagion" (Reis Insights, 5/02), over 50% of retailĖs gross leasable area (GLA) is noncompetitive. If you doubt these stats, check out the sagging sales-psf numbers being reported for fiscal 2001, where sales-psf declines are 10%-15% for many of the high-growth retailers of the 1990s. Restructuring strip tenants, such as Albertsons, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Penn Traffic, Winn-Dixie and Wild Oats Markets, have not fared much better. The real estate capital markets have been providing some relief through sale-leasebacks and private placements. But the acquisition dollars now pouring in could benefit tenants occupying properties that have been on perpetual deferred maintenance, by making them a better destination to shop. An infusion of capital into long-neglected assets under new ownership will serve to reposition centers with better tenants, but it could also send many on a death march. These same retailers could find their leases terminated to accommodate one or more of their competitors. Or worse, the center may be razed to make way for a new shopping venue that deviates from the original function. On the flip side, an existing anchor might find cause to pick up and move down the road, leaving the inline tenants orphaned and to fend for themselves. How many times have grocers pulled this when title changes hand? Even strong inline retailers may find it difficult to survive. If the investor is to get a good return, they better (1) there is a cap rate commensurate with the growing levels of risk; (2) a retailer [tenant] that Wal-Mart canĖt trounce; and (3) an exit strategy that has a buyer waiting at the back door in two to three years' time. The last asset feeding frenzy of this magnitude occurred in 1995. Just as it was then, todayĖs fundamentals are weak and cap rates are aggressively low. Yet, after a seven-year hiatus, the investment cycle seems ripe for the picking. But how can someone be dumb enough to pay full price for strip centers that stand to be stripped of their original function, if not value? Aside from credit risk, food and apparel retailers are experiencing aggravated channel disintermediation from other formats. This can mean only two things: 1) depressed growth and productivity, and 2) rash defensive strategies. The supercenter is the more immediate aggressor. In reaction to this one-stop shopping gorilla, strip center anchors have been inhaling the ancillary tenants (similar to what department stores did in the early 1990s to mall inline tenants). Gone are the video stores, off-price apparel shops, drug stores, vitamin outlets, Chinese and sushi take-outs, dry cleaners, banks, travel agents. You get the picture. All the local shops that once occupied the remaining 70,000 to 150,000 square feet of spec space are being displaced and/or relocated into the supermarket or discount store. Rising vacancies, consolidation, and relocation: These trends follow the relocation of drug stores from inline to outparcels. Walgreens sees no reason to pay rent when it can own its own corner on "main and main". Not only is the occupancy cost lower on a net present value basis, but the value to the consumer is also greater access and convenience. This implosion of inline space is the most insidious form of consolidation that is squeezing the "jam" out of these bread-and-butter assets. There is a strong rationale to buy into the strip center sector. But buying right is the trick. Opportunities abound because of (1) the level of non-competitive space; (2) voids in secondary markets that were overlooked by retailers during the 1990s, but which do not have migrating households and employers, and (3) years of poor management. Presently, there are an estimated 40,000+ strip centers nationwide. During the late 1990s, new construction expanded existing supply by a robust 5%. The supply-demand imbalance has taken its toll on rents. In real terms, net effective rents have been sharply declining since 1998. Of course, innovative management capable of designing strip retail around the demographic changes that are filling a void will beat the downtrend. Cap rates for shopping centers will be crossing over mall yields this year, just like they did in 1995. Traditionally, grocer-anchored centers have always been riskier investments than regional malls, and are priced accordingly, at a 300-500 basis-point differential. But the latest comps say different. The last bread-and-butter grocery-anchored sale closed by a REIT had a cap of 8.2%. The last mall sale cap was 8.5%. Why would real estate investors pay full market value for speculative-grade shopping center assets, particularly if the potential to add value were low? Under these circumstances, the right assumption would be to haircut asset values by 50%-60% of appraised values.
The marketĖs recent shifting local economy has resulted in the fall in the demand for industrial real estate: From 1997 to 2000, new completions averaged 3.9 million square feet per year, which were met by equivalent net absorption levels. Another 5.4 million square feet of standard industrial space had been delivered to the market by the onset of 2002. By then, demand had waned, with a net absorption of 763,000 square feet of industrial space. Thusthere have been escalating vacancies, beginning in 2002, with a 10.4% rate, up from 8.9% the prior year. Vacency rates averaged near 16% in the latter half of the 1980s. Still, HoustonĖs vacancy rate is lower than the rates in the neighboring industrial markets of Austin (12%), Dallas (11.7%), and Ft. Worth (11.3%). Current vacant space currently reported by Reis is 29 million square feet. Rental growth has suffered. Per its first quarter 2002 report, Reis records asking and effective rates for multi-tenant warehouse and distribution space of $3.69 psf and $3.61 psf, up 0.8% and 0.3% from one year earlier. Houston's rent gains rank it second in the nation after San DiegoĖs 1.5% increase. Dallasrents have seen a 3.7% loss; Austin, which sustained a 1.9% loss; and Ft. WorthĖs loss of 1.0%.
But after suffering three consecutive quarters of negative net absorption, the trend turned positive, with net absorption at 6,367 units, in the second quarter, Reis said. Rents rose 0.4% to an average of $895 a month in the second quarter, after falling 0.4% in the first quarter and rising 1.1% in the year-earlier quarter. (In 2000, absorption ranged between 45,000 and 50,000 units a quarter.) Reis is maintaining its forecast for a 6.4% vacancy rate at the end of the year, up from 4.8% in 2001. Related articles: Apartment Update
Overall industrial building vacancies in the Dallas area have jumped from about 11.3 percent at the end of 2001 to 12.3 percent at midyear, according to Cushman & Wakefield's newest statistics. Demand for space has slowed to a trickle, with only about 62,000 square feet of net leasing this year. That's down from about 494,000 square feet of net leasing in all of 2001, according to Cushman & Wakefield. With the slowdown in leasing, developers have cut back on the amount of construction. About 1.7 million square feet of warehouse space was being built in the area at the end of June, compared with more than 3.5 million square feet at the start of the year. "Construction this time last year was 7.7 million square feet," Mr. Pearson said. "Because of the construction time of six to seven months, they can respond more quickly to changing market conditions."
Owners and research analysts say absorption of industrial space is hard to forecast from the government's employment data because the jobs figures don't take into account productivity from automation or technology. Industrial buildings tend to be filled more with things than actual people. And indicators that are out there have their weaknesses. For instance, gross domestic product can be misleading because it is primarily service-based. Recently, Lee Schalop, an analyst at Banc of America Securities, New York, used the Institute for Supply Chain Management index, a leading indicator of manufacturing output, and found a 60% correlation with actual demand for industrial space. GDP had a 32% correlation with actual demand. So Wednesday, AMB Property Corp. plans to unveil a measure - called the AMB Industrial Absorption Indicator - that it says will help better predict demand for industrial real estate. The San Francisco-based industrial real-estate investment trust is banking on the fact that, so far, its measure has showed an 88% correlation with the actual demand for industrial space, a higher level of accuracy than other indicators used to forecast demand. AMB, which has worked on the measure for the past six months, plans to post on its Web site (www.amb.com) national forecasts using the indicator. As its indicator, AMB uses the Federal Reserve Board's monthly manufacturing output index, which signals changes in demand for industrial space six months down the road. The industrial sector has experienced a record five consecutive quarters of negative net absorption, according to Torto Wheaton Research. The research firm expects the vacancy rate for industrial space to rise to 10.7% for the second quarter from 10.2% in the first quarter and 8.2% a year earlier.
But the latest increase in the vacancy rate was the smallest quarterly rise in the past six quarters. Also, a decline in asking rents - 1.6% in the second quarter - was the smallest reduction since the second quarter of last year, Reis reported. Sublease space makes up 29% of the total vacancy. Businesses occupied 6.1 million square feet less space at the end of June than at the end of March. This so-called negative absorption in the second quarter was a fraction of that in the previous year, an average of 33.9 million square feet per quarter. Last week, Standard & Poor's reported that owners were delinquent on 1.04% of the $22 billion in office-building mortgages the rating agency tracks. That is more than double the rate at the end of 2001, but still way below the delinquency rate of the last recession, which exceeded 15%.
At the end of 2001, Chelsea owned or had an interest in 57 outlet centers in 20 states and overseas, containing an aggregate of 12.6 million square feet of leasable area. Its Premium Outlet portfolio (91% of 2001 revenue) comprised 27 upscale, fashion-oriented manufacturers' outlet centers located near major metropolitan areas. The premium portfolio was 98% leased as of Dec. 31, 2001, and contained approximately 2,000 stores with more than 500 different tenants. Outlet centers in Chelsea's Other Retail segment (5.9% of 2001 revenue), primarily factory stores, were 91%-leased and contained 700 stores with 180 different tenants at yearend 2001. Chelsea's properties developed in Japan now represent the largest and second-largest outlet centers in that country. The trust is expanding the existing properties, breaking ground on a third, and has plans to add five to seven additional Japan locations in coming years. [see comment on Japan below.] Chelsea's revenues climbed 26% in the 2002 first quarter, on acquisitions, development of new outlet centers, expansion of existing facilities, higher rents, and relatively stable occupancy rates. Leases written years ago are usually well below current market rates and provide substantial revenue growth when renewed. In the first quarter, rental rates on renewed leases were raised 12% to 15% on average. We at S&P see revenue growth trends continuing throughout 2002, aided mainly by a full-year contribution from the 31 properties acquired in September, 2001, and expansion of Chelsea's Japan joint venture. Longer-term, we expect new developments planned for 2003 in Las Vegas, Chicago, Seattle, and a third site in Japan to continue growth. Chelsea has limited exposure to tenant bankruptcy. It has provided a compound annual cash flow growth rate of nearly 18% over the past five years. We project that growth will continue above 10% over the next several years. Based on our dividend discount valuation, and taking into account accelerating growth rates, we see the shares as trading at a significant discount to their intrinsic value. Chelsea's stock also trades at a discounts relative to price-to-earnings and price-to-cash flow multiples of peers. We believe that the growth, current income, and net asset value provided by Chelsea's stock make it a compelling buying opportunity, and we're establishing a 6- to 12-month price target of $40 -- a 25% premium to the June 14 closing price of $32. Note: Analyst Mathis covers shares of real estate investment trusts for Standard & Poor's. Another CPG Plug Deborah Adamson, CBS.MarketWatch.com 7-9 Sam Lieber of the Alpine U.S. Real Estate Equity Fund likes Chelsea Property Group. The outlet mall developer has struck gold in two centers it built in Japan, with sales topping $900 per square foot, which is three times the draw of a "very good" mall in the U.S., Lieber said. The REIT boasts a 6.5 percent dividend yield and trades at 10.6 times 2003 earnings. Stats and Valuations WSJ 7-2
10 Questions With Michael Schatt, portfolio manager of the Phoenix-Duff & Phelps Real Estate Fund George Mannes, The Street.com 4-22 Q: Your top holdings include Vornado, CBL & Associates, Boston Properties, Chelsea Property Group and General Growth Properties. What do you like about them? A: The common theme amongst our holdings would be a very competent and very experienced management team. And a management team that looks at its business as being one of value creation. [That means] buying properties, building properties and adding to the value through property management, through positioning their properties in the marketplace, through working with tenants, bringing in credit tenants, structuring their leases correctly, operating their buildings correctly. And who view the value creation process as -- well, just that, as a process, if you will. The assets are in their portfolio for a time. They're not there in perpetuity. And as they're able to create value, they dispose of the asset, capture the value that they've created, and reinvest that differential in the next value creation opportunity. Quick Facts, Stats & Opinions Real estate investment trusts [REITs] can help stabilize a stock-heavy portfolio. But it is unrealistic to expect them to keep pace when stocks turn up. And while REITs are usually viewed as fairly conservative investments, their defensive characteristics have not always panned out. In July, many were hammered as hard [as] or harder than other stocks. In face, in a two-week span, the Morgan Stanley REIT Index slumped 10 percent. (Dow Theory Forecasts via Wash Post 9-8) An investment of $1,000 at the height of the stock market in March 2000, would be worth $1,501 today if the money had been put into real estate mutual funds, for example, compared with $639 if it had been placed in a fund mimicking the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, or $211 if invested in the Nasdaq composite, according to Lipper. (Leah Ward, NY Times 8-4) REITs such as Highwoods Properties Inc., Parkway Properties Inc., Prentiss Properties Trust, and Reckson have the most exposure to WorldCom and its units, but none has more than 4% of its rental revenue coming from the company. Landlords say it is too soon to conclude what will happen to WorldCom, much less its office space. (Ray Smith, WSJ 7-10) Consider this: If WorldCom were to shut down tomorrow, pack up, send its 8,000 Washington area employees home and put for-rent signs in front of all its facilities, Loudoun County's already-high office vacancy rate of 17% would almost double to a staggering 32.9%. It is extremely unlikely that would actually happen, but the number, from Delta Associates, shows just how large a player WorldCom is in the region's real estate market. This shows how the ripples of corporate scandal have found their way to the local real estate world. (Neil Irwin, Wash Post 7-1) Home Page Previous REIT Update Top Sites
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||