10-K 1 spg-20161231x10k.htm 10-K spg_Current_Folio_10K

 

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549


FORM 10‑K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15 (d) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016


SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, INC.

SIMON PROPERTY GROUP, L.P.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

 

 

 

Delaware
(Simon Property Group, Inc.)
Delaware
(Simon Property Group, L.P.)
(State of incorporation
or organization)

001‑14469
(Simon Property Group, Inc.)
001-36110
(Simon Property Group, L.P.)
(Commission File No.)

04‑6268599
(Simon Property Group, Inc.)
34-1755769
(Simon Property Group, L.P.)
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)

 

225 West Washington Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
(Address of principal executive offices) (ZIP Code)

(317) 636‑1600
(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Title of each class

 

 

Name of each exchange on which registered

Simon Property Group, Inc.

Common stock, $0.0001 par value

 

 

New York Stock Exchange

Simon Property Group, Inc.

83/8% Series J Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, $0.0001 par value

 

 

New York Stock Exchange

Simon Property Group, L.P.

2.375% Senior Unsecured Notes due 2020

 

 

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). 

Simon Property Group, Inc.    Yes ☒    No ☐

Simon Property Group, L.P.    Yes ☒    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.

 

 

Simon Property Group, Inc.    Yes ☐    No ☒

Simon Property Group, L.P.    Yes ☐    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.

 

 

Simon Property Group, Inc.    Yes ☒    No ☐

Simon Property Group, L.P.    Yes ☒    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). 

 

 

Simon Property Group, Inc.    Yes ☒    No ☐

Simon Property Group, L.P.    Yes ☒    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.  ☒

 

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. ☐

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 the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act (check one):

 

 

 

 

Simon Property Group, Inc.:

 

 

 

Large accelerated filer ☒

Accelerated filer ☐

Non‑accelerated filer ☐

Smaller reporting company ☐

 

 

(Do not check if a smaller
reporting company)

 

Simon Property Group, L.P.:

 

 

 

Large accelerated filer ☐

Accelerated filer ☐

Non-accelerated filer ☒

Smaller reporting company ☐

 

 

(Do not check if a smaller
reporting company)

 

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in rule 12‑b of the Act).

 

 

Simon Property Group, Inc.    Yes ☐    No ☒

Simon Property Group, L.P.    Yes ☐    No ☒

The aggregate market value of shares of common stock held by non‑affiliates of Simon Property Group, Inc. was approximately $67,680 million based on the closing sale price on the New York Stock Exchange for such stock on June 30, 2016.

As of January 31, 2017, Simon Property Group, Inc. had 319,824,215 and 8,000 shares of common stock and Class B common stock outstanding, respectively.

Simon Property Group, L.P. had no publicly-traded voting equity as of June 30, 2016.  Simon Property Group, L.P. has no common stock outstanding.


Documents Incorporated By Reference

Portions of Simon Property Group, Inc.’s Proxy Statement in connection with its 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference in Part III.

 

 

 


 

EXPLANATORY NOTE

This report combines the annual reports on Form 10‑K for the annual period ended December 31, 2016 of Simon Property Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Simon Property Group, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership. Unless stated otherwise or the context otherwise requires, references to “Simon” mean Simon Property Group, Inc. and references to the “Operating Partnership” mean Simon Property Group, L.P. References to “we,” “us” and “our” mean collectively Simon, the Operating Partnership and those entities/subsidiaries owned or controlled by Simon and/or the Operating Partnership.

Simon is a real estate investment trust, or REIT, under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Internal Revenue Code. We are structured as an umbrella partnership REIT under which substantially all of our business is conducted through the Operating Partnership, Simon’s majority‑owned partnership subsidiary, for which Simon is the general partner. As of December 31, 2016, Simon owned an approximate 86.9% ownership interest in the Operating Partnership, with the remaining 13.1% ownership interest owned by limited partners. As the sole general partner of the Operating Partnership, Simon has exclusive control of the Operating Partnership’s day‑to‑day management.

We operate Simon and the Operating Partnership as one business. The management of Simon consists of the same members as the management of the Operating Partnership. As general partner with control of the Operating Partnership, Simon consolidates the Operating Partnership for financial reporting purposes, and Simon has no material assets or liabilities other than its investment in the Operating Partnership. Therefore, the assets and liabilities of Simon and the Operating Partnership are the same on their respective financial statements.

We believe that combining the annual reports on Form 10‑K of Simon and the Operating Partnership into this single report provides the following benefits:

·

enhances investors’ understanding of Simon and the Operating Partnership by enabling investors to view the business as a whole in the same manner as management views and operates the business;

·

eliminates duplicative disclosure and provides a more streamlined presentation since substantially all of the disclosure in this report applies to both Simon and the Operating Partnership; and

·

creates time and cost efficiencies through the preparation of one combined report instead of two separate reports.

We believe it is important for investors to understand the few differences between Simon and the Operating Partnership in the context of how we operate as a consolidated company. The primary difference is that Simon itself does not conduct business, other than acting as the general partner of the Operating Partnership and issuing equity or equity‑related instruments from time to time. In addition, Simon itself does not incur any indebtedness, as all debt is incurred by the Operating Partnership or entities/subsidiaries owned or controlled by the Operating Partnership.

The Operating Partnership holds, directly or indirectly, substantially all of our assets, including our ownership interests in our joint ventures. The Operating Partnership conducts substantially all of our business and is structured as a partnership with no publicly traded equity. Except for the net proceeds from equity issuances by Simon, which are contributed to the capital of the Operating Partnership in exchange for, in the case of common stock issuances by Simon, common units of partnership interest in the Operating Partnership, or units, or, in the case of preferred stock issuances by Simon, preferred units of partnership interest in the Operating Partnership, or preferred units, the Operating Partnership, directly or indirectly, generates the capital required by our business through its operations, the incurrence of indebtedness, proceeds received from the disposition of certain properties and joint ventures and the issuance of units or preferred units to third parties.

The presentation of stockholders’ equity, partners’ equity and noncontrolling interests are the main areas of difference between the consolidated financial statements of Simon and those of the Operating Partnership. The differences between stockholders’ equity and partners’ equity result from differences in the equity issued at the Simon and Operating Partnership levels. The units held by limited partners in the Operating Partnership are accounted for as partners’ equity in the Operating Partnership’s financial statements and as noncontrolling interests in Simon’s financial statements. The noncontrolling interests in the Operating Partnership’s financial statements include the interests of unaffiliated partners in various consolidated partnerships. The noncontrolling interests in Simon’s financial statements include the same noncontrolling interests at the Operating Partnership level and, as previously stated, the units held by limited partners of the Operating Partnership. Although classified differently, total equity of Simon and the Operating Partnership is the same.

To help investors understand the differences between Simon and the Operating Partnership, this report provides:

·

separate consolidated financial statements for Simon and the Operating Partnership;

2


 

·

a single set of condensed notes to such consolidated financial statements that includes separate discussions of noncontrolling interests and stockholders’ equity or partners’ equity, accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) and per share and per unit data, as applicable;

·

a combined Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations section that also includes discrete information related to each entity; and

·

separate Part II, Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities sections related to each entity.

This report also includes separate Part II, Item 9A. Controls and Procedures sections and separate Exhibits 31 and 32 certifications for each of Simon and the Operating Partnership in order to establish that the requisite certifications have been made and that Simon and the Operating Partnership are each compliant with Rule 13a‑14(a) or Rule 15d‑14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. §1350. The separate discussions of Simon and the Operating Partnership in this report should be read in conjunction with each other to understand our results on a consolidated basis and how management operates our business.

In order to highlight the differences between Simon and the Operating Partnership, the separate sections in this report for Simon and the Operating Partnership specifically refer to Simon and the Operating Partnership. In the sections that combine disclosure of Simon and the Operating Partnership, this report refers to “we” and “us” actions or holdings as being “our” actions or holdings. Although the Operating Partnership is generally the entity that directly or indirectly enters into contracts and joint ventures, holds assets and incurs debt, we believe that reference to “we,” “us” or “our” in this context is appropriate because the business is one enterprise and we operate substantially all of our business through the Operating Partnership.

 

3


 

Simon Property Group, Inc.

Simon Property Group, L.P.

Annual Report on Form 10‑K

December 31, 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Item No.

  

 

Page No.

Part I 

1. 

 

Business

1A.

 

Risk Factors

11 

1B. 

 

Unresolved Staff Comments

20 

2. 

 

Properties

20 

3. 

 

Legal Proceedings

49 

4. 

 

Mine Safety Disclosures

49 

Part II 

5. 

 

Market for the Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters, and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

50 

6. 

 

Selected Financial Data

53 

7. 

 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

55 

7A. 

 

Qualitative and Quantitative Disclosure About Market Risk

73 

8. 

 

Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

75 

9. 

 

Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

127 

9A. 

 

Controls and Procedures

127 

9B. 

 

Other Information

128 

Part III 

10. 

 

Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

129 

11. 

 

Executive Compensation

129 

12. 

 

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

129 

13. 

 

Certain Relationships and Related Transactions and Director Independence

129 

14. 

 

Principal Accountant Fees and Services

129 

Part IV 

15. 

 

Exhibits, and Financial Statement Schedules

130 

Signatures 

131 

 

 

4


 

Part I

Item 1.Business

Simon Property Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates as a self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust, or REIT, under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Internal Revenue Code. REITs will generally not be liable for U.S. federal corporate income taxes as long as they distribute not less than 100% of their REIT taxable income. Simon Property Group, L.P. is our majority-owned Delaware partnership subsidiary that owns all of our real estate properties and other assets. Unless stated otherwise or the context otherwise requires, references to "Simon" mean Simon Property Group, Inc. and references to the "Operating Partnership" mean Simon Property Group, L.P.  References to "we," "us" and "our" mean collectively Simon, the Operating Partnership and those entities/subsidiaries owned or controlled by Simon and/or the Operating Partnership. According to the Operating Partnership's partnership agreement, the Operating Partnership is required to pay all expenses of Simon.

We own, develop and manage retail real estate properties, which consist primarily of malls, Premium Outlets®, and The Mills®. As of December 31, 2016, we owned or held an interest in 206 income‑producing properties in the United States, which consisted of 108 malls, 67 Premium Outlets, 14 Mills, four lifestyle centers, and 13 other retail properties in 37 states and Puerto Rico. In addition, we have redevelopment and expansion projects, including the addition of anchors, big box tenants, and restaurants, underway at 27 properties in the United States and we have one outlet and one other significant retail project under development. Internationally, as of December 31, 2016, we had ownership interests in nine Premium Outlets in Japan, three Premium Outlets in South Korea, two Premium Outlets in Canada, one Premium Outlet in Mexico, and one Premium Outlet in Malaysia. We also own an interest in six Designer Outlet properties in Europe and one Designer Outlet property in Canada, of which four properties are consolidated. Of the six properties in Europe, two are located in Italy and one each is located in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. We also have four international outlet properties under development. As of December 31, 2016, we owned a 20.3% equity stake in Klépierre SA, or Klépierre, a publicly traded, Paris‑based real estate company, which owns, or has an interest in, shopping centers located in 16 countries in Europe.

For a description of our operational strategies and developments in our business during 2016, see Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” of this Form 10‑K.

Other Policies

The following is a discussion of our investment policies, financing policies, conflict of interest policies and policies with respect to certain other activities. One or more of these policies may be amended or rescinded from time to time without a stockholder vote.

Investment Policies

While we emphasize equity real estate investments, we may also provide secured financing to or invest in equity or debt securities of other entities engaged in real estate activities or securities of other issuers consistent with Simon’s qualification as a REIT. However, any of these investments would be subject to the percentage ownership limitations and gross income tests necessary for REIT qualification. These REIT limitations mean that Simon cannot make an investment that would cause its real estate assets to be less than 75% of its total assets. Simon must also derive at least 75% of its gross income directly or indirectly from investments relating to real property or mortgages on real property, including “rents from real property,” dividends from other REITs and, in certain circumstances, interest from certain types of temporary investments. In addition, Simon must also derive at least 95% of its gross income from such real property investments, and from dividends, interest and gains from the sale or dispositions of stock or securities or from other combinations of the foregoing.

Subject to Simon’s REIT limitations, we may invest in the securities of other issuers in connection with acquisitions of indirect interests in real estate. Such an investment would normally be in the form of general or limited partnership or membership interests in special purpose partnerships and limited liability companies that own one or more properties. We may, in the future, acquire all or substantially all of the securities or assets of other REITs, management companies or similar entities where such investments would be consistent with our investment policies.

5


 

Financing Policies

Because Simon’s REIT qualification requires us to distribute at least 90% of its REIT taxable income, we regularly access the debt markets to raise the funds necessary to finance acquisitions, develop and redevelop properties, and refinance maturing debt. We must comply with the covenants contained in our financing agreements that limit our ratio of debt to total assets or market value, as defined. For example, the Operating Partnership’s lines of credit and the indentures for the Operating Partnership’s debt securities contain covenants that restrict the total amount of debt of the Operating Partnership to 65%, or 60% in relation to certain debt, of total assets, as defined under the related agreements, and secured debt to 50% of total assets. In addition, these agreements contain other covenants requiring compliance with financial ratios. Furthermore, the amount of debt that we may incur is limited as a practical matter by our desire to maintain acceptable ratings for the debt securities of the Operating Partnership. We strive to maintain investment grade ratings at all times for various business reasons, including their effect on our ability to access attractive capital, but we cannot assure you that we will be able to do so in the future.

If Simon’s Board of Directors determines to seek additional capital, we may raise such capital by offering equity or incurring debt, creating joint ventures with existing ownership interests in properties, entering into joint venture arrangements for new development projects, retaining cash flows or a combination of these methods. If Simon’s Board of Directors determines to raise equity capital, it may, without stockholder approval, issue additional shares of common stock or other capital stock. Simon’s Board of Directors may issue a number of shares up to the amount of our authorized capital or may issue units in any manner and on such terms and for such consideration as it deems appropriate. We may also raise additional capital by issuing common units of partnership interest in the Operating Partnership, or units. Such securities also may include additional classes of Simon’s preferred stock or preferred units of partnership interest in the Operating Partnership, or preferred units, which may be convertible into common stock or units, as the case may be. Existing stockholders and unitholders have no preemptive right to purchase shares or units in any subsequent issuances of securities by us. Any issuance of equity could dilute a stockholder’s investment in Simon or a limited partner’s investment in the Operating Partnership.

We expect most future borrowings will be made through the Operating Partnership or its subsidiaries. We might, however, incur borrowings through other entities that would be reloaned to the Operating Partnership. Borrowings may be in the form of bank borrowings, publicly and privately placed debt instruments, or purchase money obligations to the sellers of properties. Any such indebtedness may be secured or unsecured. Any such indebtedness may also have full or limited recourse to the borrower or be cross‑collateralized with other debt, or may be fully or partially guaranteed by the Operating Partnership. We issue unsecured debt securities through the Operating Partnership, but we may issue other debt securities which may be convertible into common or preferred stock or be accompanied by warrants to purchase common or preferred stock. We also may sell or securitize our lease receivables. Although we may borrow to fund the payment of dividends, we currently have no expectation that we will regularly do so.

The Operating Partnership has a $4.0 billion unsecured revolving credit facility, or Credit Facility. The Credit Facility’s initial borrowing capacity of $4.0 billion may be increased to $5.0 billion during its term. The initial maturity date of the Credit Facility is June 30, 2018 and can be extended for an additional year to June 30, 2019 at our sole option, subject to our continued compliance with the terms thereof. The Operating Partnership also has a $3.50 billion supplemental unsecured revolving credit facility, or Supplemental Facility, and together with the Credit Facility, the Credit Facilities. On April 6, 2016, the Operating Partnership amended the Supplemental Facility to, among other matters, (i) exercise its $750.0 million accordion feature such that the Supplemental Facility’s borrowing capacity was increased from $2.75 billion to $3.50 billion and (ii) add a new $750.0 million accordion feature to permit us to further increase the Supplemental Facility’s borrowing capacity to $4.25 billion during its term. The initial maturity date of the Supplemental Facility is June 30, 2019 and can be extended for an additional year to June 30, 2020 at our sole option, subject to our continued compliance with the terms thereof. The base interest rate on each of the Credit Facility and the Supplemental Facility is LIBOR plus 80 basis points with an additional facility fee of 10 basis points. The Credit Facilities provide for borrowings denominated in U.S. dollars, Euros, Yen, Sterling, Canadian dollars and Australian dollars.

The Operating Partnership also has available a global unsecured commercial paper note program, or the Commercial Paper program, of $1.0 billion, or the non‑U.S. dollar equivalent thereof. The Operating Partnership may issue unsecured commercial paper notes, denominated in U.S. dollars, Euros and other currencies. Notes issued in non‑U.S. currencies may be issued by one or more subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership and are guaranteed by the Operating Partnership. These notes are sold under customary terms in the U.S. and Euro commercial paper note markets and rank (either by themselves or as a result of the guarantee described above) pari passu with the Operating Partnership’s other unsecured senior indebtedness. The Commercial Paper program is supported by the Credit Facilities and, if necessary or

6


 

appropriate, we may make one or more draws under either Credit Facility to pay amounts outstanding from time to time on the Commercial Paper program.

We may also finance our business through the following:

·

issuance of shares of common stock or preferred stock or warrants to purchase the same;

·

issuance of additional units;

·

issuance of preferred units;

·

issuance of other securities, including unsecured notes and mortgage debt;

·

draws on our Credit Facilities;

·

borrowings under the Commercial Paper program; or

·

sale or exchange of ownership interests in properties.

The Operating Partnership may also issue units to contributors of properties or other partnership interests which may permit the contributor to defer tax gain recognition under the Internal Revenue Code.

We do not have a policy limiting the number or amount of mortgages that may be placed on any particular property. Mortgage financing instruments, however, typically limit additional indebtedness on such properties. Additionally, the Credit Facilities, our unsecured note indentures and other contracts may limit our ability to borrow and contain limits on mortgage indebtedness we may incur as well as certain financial covenants we must maintain.

Typically, we invest in or form special purpose entities to assist us in obtaining secured permanent financing at attractive terms. Permanent financing may be structured as a mortgage loan on a single property, or on a group of properties, and generally requires us to provide a mortgage lien on the property or properties in favor of an institutional third party, as a joint venture with a third party, or as a securitized financing. For securitized financings, we create special purpose entities to own the properties. These special purpose entities, which are common in the real estate industry, are structured so that they would not be consolidated in a bankruptcy proceeding involving a parent company. We decide upon the structure of the financing based upon the best terms then available to us and whether the proposed financing is consistent with our other business objectives. For accounting purposes, we include the outstanding securitized debt of special purpose entities owning consolidated properties as part of our consolidated indebtedness.

Conflict of Interest Policies

We maintain policies and have entered into agreements designed to reduce or eliminate potential conflicts of interest. Simon has adopted governance principles governing the function, conduct, selection, orientation and duties of its subsidiaries and Simon’s Board of Directors and the Company, as well as written charters for each of the standing Committees of Simon’s Board of Directors. In addition, Simon’s Board of Directors has a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which applies to all of its officers, directors, and employees and those of its subsidiaries. At least a majority of the members of Simon’s Board of Directors must qualify as independent under the listing standards of the New York Stock Exchange, or NYSE, and cannot be affiliated with the Simon family, who are significant stockholders and/or unitholders in the Operating Partnership. In addition, the Audit and Compensation Committees of Simon’s Board of Directors are comprised entirely of independent members who meet the additional independence and financial sophistication requirements of the NYSE. Any transaction between us and the Simon family, including property acquisitions, service and property management agreements and retail space leases, must be approved by a majority of Simon’s non-affiliated directors.

The sale by the Operating Partnership of any property that it owns may have an adverse tax impact on the Simon family or other limited partners of the Operating Partnership. In order to avoid any conflict of interest, the Simon charter requires that at least three-fourths of Simon’s independent directors must authorize and require the Operating Partnership to sell any property it owns. Any such sale is subject to applicable agreements with third parties. Noncompetition agreements executed by David Simon, Simon’s Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Herbert Simon, Simon’s Chairman Emeritus, as well as David Simon's employment agreement, contain covenants limiting their ability to participate in certain shopping center activities.

7


 

Policies With Respect To Certain Other Activities

We intend to make investments which are consistent with Simon’s qualification as a REIT, unless Simon’s Board of Directors determines that it is no longer in Simon’s best interests to so qualify as a REIT. Simon’s Board of Directors may make such a determination because of changing circumstances or changes in the REIT requirements. Simon has authority to issue shares of its capital stock or other securities in exchange for property. We also have authority to repurchase or otherwise reacquire our shares, our units, or any other securities. On April 2, 2015, Simon’s Board of Directors authorized Simon to repurchase up to $2.0 billion of its common stock over a twenty‑four month period as market conditions warrant, or the Repurchase Program. Under the Repurchase Program, Simon may repurchase the shares in the open market, or in privately negotiated transactions. At December 31, 2016, we had remaining authority to repurchase $1.4 billion of common stock, and on February 13, 2017, Simon’s Board of Directors authorized a two-year extension of the Repurchase Program through March 31, 2019. Simon may also issue shares of its common stock, or pay cash at its option, to holders of units in future periods upon exercise of such holders’ rights under the partnership agreement of the Operating Partnership. Our policy prohibits us from making any loans to the directors or executive officers of Simon for any purpose. We may make loans to the joint ventures in which we participate. Additionally, we may make or buy interests in loans secured by real estate properties owned by others or make investments in companies that own real estate assets.

Competition

The retail real estate industry is dynamic and competitive. We compete with numerous merchandise distribution channels, including malls, outlet centers, community/lifestyle centers, and other shopping centers in the United States and abroad. We also compete with internet retailing sites and catalogs which provide retailers with distribution options beyond existing brick and mortar retail properties. The existence of competitive alternatives could have a material adverse effect on our ability to lease space and on the level of rents we can obtain. This results in competition for both the tenants to occupy the properties that we develop and manage as well as for the acquisition of prime sites (including land for development and operating properties). We believe that there are numerous factors that make our properties highly desirable to retailers, including:

·

the quality, location and diversity of our properties;

·

our management and operational expertise;

·

our extensive experience and relationships with retailers, lenders and suppliers; and

·

our marketing initiatives and consumer focused strategic corporate alliances.

Certain Activities

During the past three years, we have:

·

issued 5,580,501 shares of Simon common stock upon the exchange of units in the Operating Partnership;

·

issued 210,571 restricted shares of Simon common stock and 1,353,830 long‑term incentive performance units, or LTIP units, net of forfeitures, under The Simon Property Group 1998 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, or the 1998 Plan;

·

purchased 3,312,537 shares of Simon common stock in the open market for $598.3 million pursuant to our Repurchase Program;

·

redeemed 944,359 units in the Operating Partnership for $172.27 per unit in cash;

·

issued 555,150 units in the Operating Partnership in exchange for the remaining interest in a former joint venture property;

·

amended and extended the Credit Facility in April 2014 to increase our borrowing capacity and extend its term;

·

amended and extended the Supplemental Facility in March 2015 to increase our borrowing capacity and extend its term, and amended the Supplemental Facility in April 2016 to further increase our borrowing capacity;

·

borrowed a maximum amount of $1.5 billion under the Credit Facilities; the outstanding amount of borrowings under the Credit Facilities as of December 31, 2016 was $316.5 million, of which $191.5 million was related to U.S. dollar equivalent of Yen‑denominated borrowings;

8


 

·

established a global Commercial Paper program and increased the borrowing capacity from $500.0 million to $1.0 billion; the outstanding amount of Commercial Paper notes as of December 31, 2016 was $953.7 million, of which $79.3 million was related to U.S. dollar equivalent of Euro‑denominated notes; and

·

provided annual reports containing financial statements audited by our independent registered public accounting firm and quarterly reports containing unaudited financial statements to our security holders.

Employees

At December 31, 2016, we and our affiliates employed approximately 5,000 persons at various properties and offices throughout the United States, of which approximately 1,900 were part‑time. Approximately 1,100 of these employees were located at our corporate headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Corporate Headquarters

Our corporate headquarters are located at 225 West Washington Street, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204, and our telephone number is (317) 636‑1600.

Available Information

Simon is a large accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b‑2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or Exchange Act) and is required, pursuant to Item 101 of Regulation S‑K, to provide certain information regarding our website and the availability of certain documents filed with or furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. Our Internet website address is www.simon.com. 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 Exchange Act are available or may be accessed free of charge through the “About Simon/Investor Relations/Financial Information” section of our Internet website as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Our Internet website and the information contained therein or connected thereto are not, and are not intended to be, incorporated into this Annual Report on Form 10‑K.

The following corporate governance documents are also available through the “About Simon/Investor Relations/Corporate Governance” section of our Internet website or may be obtained in print form by request of our Investor Relations Department: Governance Principles, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, Audit Committee Charter, Compensation Committee Charter, and Governance and Nominating Committee Charter.

In addition, we intend to disclose on our Internet website any amendments to, or waivers from, our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics that are required to be publicly disclosed pursuant to rules of the SEC and the NYSE.

Executive Officers

The following table sets forth certain information with respect to Simon’s executive officers as of February 24, 2017.

 

 

 

 

 

Name

    

Age

    

Position

David Simon

 

55

 

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Richard S. Sokolov

 

67

 

President and Chief Operating Officer

Andrew Juster

 

64

 

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

David J. Contis

 

58

 

Senior Executive Vice President — President, Simon Malls

John Rulli

 

60

 

Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer

Steven E. Fivel

 

56

 

General Counsel and Secretary

Alexander L. W. Snyder

 

47

 

Assistant General Counsel and Assistant Secretary

Steven K. Broadwater

 

50

 

Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer

Brian J. McDade

 

37

 

Senior Vice President and Treasurer

The executive officers of Simon serve at the pleasure of Simon’s Board of Directors except for David Simon and Richard S. Sokolov who are subject to employment agreements which may call for certain payments upon termination.

Mr. Simon has served as the Chairman of Simon’s Board of Directors since 2007 and Chief Executive Officer of Simon or its predecessor since 1995. Mr. Simon has also been a director of Simon or its predecessor since its incorporation

9


 

in 1993. Mr. Simon was the President of Simon’s predecessor from 1993 to 1996. From 1988 to 1990, Mr. Simon was Vice President of Wasserstein Perella & Company. From 1985 to 1988, he was an Associate at First Boston Corp. He is the son of the late Melvin Simon and the nephew of Herbert Simon.

Mr. Sokolov has served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Simon or its predecessor since 1996. Mr. Sokolov has also been a director of Simon or its predecessor since 1996. Mr. Sokolov was President and Chief Executive Officer of DeBartolo Realty Corporation from its incorporation in 1994 until it merged with our predecessors in 1996. Mr. Sokolov joined its predecessor, The Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation, in 1982 as Vice President and General Counsel and was named Senior Vice President, Development and General Counsel in 1986.

Mr. Juster serves as Simon’s Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Juster joined Melvin Simon & Associates, Inc., or MSA, in 1989 and held various financial positions with MSA until 1993 and thereafter has held various positions with Simon. Mr. Juster became Treasurer in 2001 and was promoted to Executive Vice President in 2008 and Chief Financial Officer in 2014.

Mr. Contis serves as Simon’s Senior Executive Vice President and President of Simon Malls. Mr. Contis joined Simon in 2011. Prior to joining Simon, Mr. Contis served as the President of Real Estate at Equity Group Investments, LLC. Mr. Contis has over 35 years of domestic and international real estate experience including 25 years overseeing both public and private mall portfolios.

Mr. Rulli serves as Simon’s Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Administrative Officer. Mr. Rulli joined MSA in 1988 and held various positions with MSA and Simon thereafter. Mr. Rulli became Chief Administrative Officer in 2007 and was promoted to Senior Executive Vice President in 2011.

Mr. Fivel serves as Simon’s General Counsel and Secretary. Prior to rejoining Simon in 2011 as Assistant General Counsel and Assistant Secretary, Mr. Fivel served as Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary of Brightpoint, Inc. Mr. Fivel was previously employed by MSA from 1988 until 1993 and then by Simon from 1993 to 1996.

Mr. Snyder serves as Simon’s Assistant General Counsel and Assistant Secretary. Mr. Snyder joined Simon in 2016 as Senior Deputy General Counsel. Immediately prior to joining Simon, Mr. Snyder was Managing Partner of the Crimson Fulcrum Strategic Institute. Mr. Snyder previously served as Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary for Beechcraft Corporation as well as Chief Counsel Mergers & Acquisitions for Koch Industries, Inc.

Mr. Broadwater serves as Simon’s Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer and prior to that as Simon’s Vice President and Corporate Controller. Mr. Broadwater joined Simon in 2004 and was promoted to Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer in 2009.

Mr. McDade serves as Simon’s Senior Vice President and Treasurer. Mr. McDade joined Simon in 2007 as the Director of Capital Markets and was promoted to Senior Vice President of Capital Markets in 2013. Mr. McDade was promoted to Treasurer in 2014.

10


 

Item 1A.  Risk Factors

The following factors, among others, could cause our actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in forward‑looking statements made in this Annual Report on Form 10‑K and presented elsewhere by our management from time to time. These factors may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, liquidity, results of operations, funds from operations, or FFO, and prospects, which we refer to herein as a material adverse effect on us or as materially and adversely affecting us, and you should carefully consider them. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or which are currently not believed to be material may also affect our actual results. We may update these factors in our future periodic reports.

Risks Relating to Retail Operations

Overall economic and market conditions may adversely affect the general retail environment.

Our concentration in the retail real estate market means that we are subject to a number of factors that could adversely affect the retail environment generally, including, without limitation:

·

changes in international, national, regional and local economic conditions;

·

tenant bankruptcies and a resulting rejection of our leases;

·

the impact on our retail tenants and demand for retail space at our properties from the increasing use of the Internet by retailers and consumers;

·

local real estate conditions, such as an oversupply of, or reduction in demand for, retail space or retail goods, decreases in rental rates, declining real estate values and the availability and creditworthiness of tenants;

·

levels of consumer spending, changes in consumer confidence and fluctuations in seasonal spending;

·

the willingness of retailers to lease space in our properties;

·

increased operating costs;

·

changes in applicable laws and regulations, including tax, environmental, safety and zoning;

·

perceptions by consumers of the safety, convenience and attractiveness of our properties;

·

casualties and other natural disasters; and

·

the potential for terrorist activities.

We derive our operating results primarily from retail tenants, many of whom have been and continue to be under some degree of economic stress. A significant deterioration in the creditworthiness of our retail tenants could have a material adverse effect on us.

Some of our properties depend on anchor stores or other major tenants to attract shoppers and could be adversely affected by the loss of one or more of these anchor stores or major tenants.

Our properties are typically anchored by department stores and other large nationally recognized tenants. The value of some of our properties could be materially and adversely affected if these anchors or other major tenants fail to comply with their contractual obligations or cease their operations.

For example, among department stores and other large stores — often referred to as “big box” stores — corporate merger activity typically results in the closure of duplicate or geographically overlapping store locations. Further, sustained adverse pressure on the results of our department stores and major tenants may have a similarly sustained adverse impact upon our own results. Certain department stores and other national retailers have experienced, and may continue to experience for the foreseeable future given current macroeconomic uncertainty and less‑than‑desirable levels of consumer confidence, considerable decreases in customer traffic in their retail stores, increased competition from alternative retail options such as those accessible via the Internet and other forms of pressure on their business models. As pressure on these department stores and national retailers increases, their ability to maintain their stores, meet their obligations both to us and to their external lenders and suppliers, withstand takeover attempts by investors or rivals or avoid bankruptcy and/or liquidation may be impaired and result in closures of their stores or their seeking of a lease modification with us. Any lease modification could be unfavorable to us as the lessor and could decrease rents or expense recovery charges. Other tenants

11


 

may be entitled to modify the economic or other terms of, or terminate, their existing leases with us in the event of such closures.

If a department store or major tenant were to close its stores at our properties, we may experience difficulty and delay and incur significant expense in replacing the tenant, as well as in leasing spaces in areas adjacent to the vacant department store or major tenant, at attractive rates, or at all. Additionally, department store or major tenant closures may result in decreased customer traffic, which could lead to decreased sales at our properties. If the sales of stores operating in our properties were to decline significantly due to the closing of anchor stores or other national retailers, adverse economic conditions, or other reasons, tenants may be unable to pay their minimum rents or expense recovery charges. In the event of any default by a tenant, we may not be able to fully recover, and/or may experience delays and costs in enforcing our rights as landlord to recover, amounts due to us under the terms of our agreements with such parties.

We face potential adverse effects from tenant bankruptcies.

Bankruptcy filings by retailers can occur regularly in the course of our operations. If a tenant files for bankruptcy, the tenant may have the right to reject and terminate one or more of its leases with us, and we cannot be sure that it will affirm one or more of its leases and continue to make rental payments to us in a timely manner. A bankruptcy filing by, or relating to, one of our tenants would bar all efforts by us to collect pre‑bankruptcy debts from that tenant, or from their property, unless we receive an order permitting us to do so from the bankruptcy court. In addition, we cannot evict a tenant solely because of its bankruptcy. If a lease is assumed by the tenant in bankruptcy, all pre‑bankruptcy balances due under the lease must be paid to us in full. However, if a lease is rejected by a tenant in bankruptcy, we would have only a general unsecured claim for damages in connection with such balances. If a bankrupt tenant vacates a space, it might not do so in a timely manner, and we might be unable to re‑lease the vacated space during that time at attractive rates, or at all. Furthermore, we may be required to incur significant expense in replacing the bankrupt tenant. Any unsecured claim we hold against a bankrupt tenant might be paid only to the extent that funds are available and only in the same percentage as is paid to all other holders of unsecured claims, and there are restrictions under bankruptcy laws that limit the amount of the claim we can make if a lease is rejected. As a result, it is likely that we would recover substantially less than the full value of any unsecured claims we hold. We continually seek to re‑lease vacant spaces resulting from tenant terminations. The bankruptcy of a tenant, particularly an anchor tenant or a national tenant with multiple locations, may make the re‑leasing of their space difficult and costly, and it also may be more difficult to lease the remainder of the space at the affected properties. Future tenant bankruptcies may impact our ability to successfully execute our re‑leasing strategy and could materially and adversely affect us.

We face a wide range of competition that could affect our ability to operate profitably.

Our properties compete with other retail properties and other forms of retailing such as catalogs and e‑commerce websites. Competition may come from malls, outlet centers, community/lifestyle centers, and other shopping centers, both existing as well as future development and redevelopment/expansion projects, as well as catalogs and e‑commerce. The presence of competitive alternatives affects our ability to lease space and the level of rents we can obtain. New construction, renovations and expansions at competing sites could also negatively affect our properties.

We also compete with other major real estate investors and developers for attractive investment opportunities and prime development sites. Competition for the acquisition of existing properties and development sites may result in increased purchase prices and may adversely affect our ability to make attractive investments on favorable terms, or at all. In addition, we compete with other retail property companies for tenants and qualified management.

We may not be able to lease newly developed properties and renew leases and relet space at existing properties.

We may not be able to lease new properties to an appropriate mix of tenants. Also, when leases for our existing properties expire, the premises may not be relet or the terms of reletting, including the cost of allowances and concessions to tenants, may be less favorable than the current lease terms. To the extent that our leasing goals are not achieved, we could be materially and adversely affected.

 

12


 

Risks Relating to Real Estate Investments and Operations

Our international activities may subject us to different or greater risk from those associated with our domestic operations.

As of December 31, 2016, we held interests in consolidated and joint venture properties that operate in Austria, Italy, Germany, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, the Netherlands, South Korea, Canada, and the United Kingdom. We also have an equity stake in Klépierre, a publicly‑traded European real estate company, which operates in 16 countries in Europe. Accordingly, our operating results and the value of our international operations may be impacted by any unhedged movements in the foreign currencies in which those operations transact and in which our net investment in the international operation is held. We may pursue additional investment, development and redevelopment/expansion opportunities outside the United States. International investment, ownership, development and redevelopment/expansion activities carry risks that are different from those we face with our domestic properties and operations. These risks include, but are not limited to:

·

adverse effects of changes in exchange rates for foreign currencies;

·

changes in foreign political and economic environments, regionally, nationally, and locally;

·

challenges of complying with a wide variety of foreign laws, including corporate governance, operations, taxes and litigation;

·

differing lending practices;

·

differences in cultures;

·

changes in applicable laws and regulations in the United States that affect international operations;

·

changes in applicable laws and regulations in these foreign jurisdictions;

·

difficulties in managing international operations; and

·

obstacles to the repatriation of earnings and cash.

Our international activities represented approximately 6.1% of consolidated net income and 8.4% of our net operating income, or NOI, for the year ended December 31, 2016. To the extent that we expand our international activities, the above risks could increase in significance, which in turn could have a material adverse effect on us.

We are subject to numerous laws and regulations that could adversely affect our operations or expose us to liability.

Our properties are subject to numerous federal, state and local laws and regulations, some of which may conflict with one another or be subject to varying judicial or regulatory interpretations. These laws and regulations may include zoning laws, building codes, competition laws, rules and agreements, landlord-tenant laws, property tax regulations, changes in real estate assessments and other laws and regulations generally applicable to business operations. Noncompliance with such laws and regulations, and any associated litigation could expose us to liability.

We face risks associated with the acquisition, development, redevelopment and expansion of properties.

We regularly acquire and develop new properties and redevelop and expand existing properties, and these activities are subject to various risks. We may not be successful in pursuing acquisition, development or redevelopment/expansion opportunities. In addition, newly acquired, developed or redeveloped/expanded properties may not perform as well as expected, impacting our anticipated return on investment. We are subject to other risks in connection with any acquisition, development and redevelopment/expansion activities, including the following:

·

acquisition or construction costs of a project may be higher than projected, potentially making the project unfeasible or unprofitable;

·

development, redevelopment or expansions may take considerably longer than expected, delaying the commencement and amount of income from the property;

·

we may not be able to obtain financing or to refinance loans on favorable terms, or at all;

·

we may be unable to obtain zoning, occupancy or other governmental approvals;

13


 

·

occupancy rates and rents may not meet our projections and the project may not be profitable; and

·

we may need the consent of third parties such as department stores, anchor tenants, mortgage lenders and joint venture partners, and those consents may be withheld.

If a development or redevelopment/expansion project is unsuccessful, either because it is not meeting our expectations when operational or was not completed according to the project planning, we could lose our investment in the project. Further, if we guarantee the property’s financing, our loss could exceed our investment in the project.

Real estate investments are relatively illiquid.

Our properties represent a substantial portion of our total consolidated assets. These investments are relatively illiquid. As a result, our ability to sell one or more of our properties or investments in real estate in response to any changes in economic, industry, or other conditions may be limited. The real estate market is affected by many factors, such as general economic conditions, availability and terms of financing, interest rates and other factors, including supply and demand for space, that are beyond our control. If we want to sell a property, we cannot assure you that we will be able to dispose of it in the desired time period or at all or that the sales price of a property will be attractive at the relevant time or even exceed the carrying value of our investment. Moreover, if a property is mortgaged, we may not be able to obtain a release of the lien on that property without the payment of the associated debt and/or a substantial prepayment penalty, which could restrict our ability to dispose of the property, even though the sale might otherwise be desirable.

Risks Relating to Debt and the Financial Markets

We have a substantial debt burden that could affect our future operations.

As of December 31, 2016, our consolidated mortgages and unsecured indebtedness, excluding related premium, discount and debt issuance costs, totaled $23.1 billion. As a result of this indebtedness, we are required to use a substantial portion of our cash flows for debt service, including selected repayment at scheduled maturities, which limits our ability to use those cash flows to fund the growth of our business. We are also subject to the risks normally associated with debt financing, including the risk that our cash flows from operations will be insufficient to meet required debt service or that we will be able to refinance such indebtedness on acceptable terms, or at all. Our debt service costs generally will not be reduced if developments at the applicable property, such as the entry of new competitors or the loss of major tenants, cause a reduction in the income from the property. Our indebtedness could also have other adverse consequences on us, including reducing our access to capital or increasing our vulnerability to general adverse economic, industry and market conditions. In addition, if a property is mortgaged to secure payment of indebtedness and income from such property is insufficient to pay that indebtedness, the property could be foreclosed upon by the mortgagee resulting in a loss of income and a decline in our total asset value. If any of the foregoing occurs, we could be materially and adversely affected.

Disruption in the capital and credit markets may adversely affect our ability to access external financings for our growth and ongoing debt service requirements.

We depend on external financings, principally debt financings, to fund the growth of our business and to ensure that we can meet ongoing maturities of our outstanding debt. Our access to financing depends on the willingness of lending institutions and other debt investors to grant credit to us and conditions in the capital markets in general. An economic recession may cause extreme volatility and disruption in the capital and credit markets. We rely upon the Credit Facilities as sources of funding for numerous transactions. Our access to these funds is dependent upon the ability of each of the participants to the Credit Facilities to meet their funding commitments to us. When markets are volatile, access to capital and credit markets could be disrupted over an extended period of time and one or more financial institutions may not have the available capital to meet their previous commitments to us. The failure of one or more participants to the Credit Facilities to meet their funding commitments to us could have a material adverse effect on us, including as a result of making it difficult to obtain the financing we may need for future growth and/or meeting our debt service requirements. We cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain the financing we need for the future growth of our business or to meet our debt service requirements, or that a sufficient amount of financing will be available to us on favorable terms, or at all.

Adverse changes in our credit rating could affect our borrowing capacity and borrowing terms.

The Operating Partnership’s outstanding senior unsecured notes, Credit Facilities, the Commercial Paper program, and Simon’s preferred stock are periodically rated by nationally recognized credit rating agencies. The credit ratings are based on our operating performance, liquidity and leverage ratios, financial condition and prospects, and other factors

14


 

viewed by the credit rating agencies as relevant to our industry and the economic outlook in general. Our credit rating can affect the amount of capital we can access, as well as the terms of any financing we obtain. Since we depend primarily on debt financing to fund the growth of our business, an adverse change in our credit rating, including actual changes and changes in outlook, or even the initiation of a review of our credit rating that could result in an adverse change, could have a material adverse effect on us.

The agreements that govern our indebtedness contain various covenants that impose restrictions on us that might affect our ability to operate freely.

We have a variety of unsecured debt, including the Credit Facilities, and secured property‑level debt. Certain of the agreements that govern our indebtedness contain covenants, including, among other things, limitations on our ability to incur secured and unsecured indebtedness, sell all or substantially all of our assets and engage in mergers and certain acquisitions. In addition, certain of the agreements that govern our indebtedness contain financial covenants that require us to maintain certain financial ratios, including certain coverage ratios. These covenants may restrict our ability to pursue certain business initiatives or certain transactions that might otherwise be advantageous to us. In addition, our ability to comply with these provisions might be affected by events beyond our control. Failure to comply with any of our financing covenants could result in an event of default, which, if not cured or waived, could accelerate the related indebtedness as well as other of our indebtedness, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

Our hedging interest rate protection arrangements may not effectively limit our interest rate risk.

We selectively manage our exposure to interest rate risk by a combination of interest rate protection agreements to effectively fix or cap all or a portion of our variable rate debt. In addition, we refinance fixed rate debt at times when we believe rates and other terms are appropriate. Our efforts to manage these exposures may not be successful.

Our use of interest rate hedging arrangements to manage risk associated with interest rate volatility may expose us to additional risks, including a risk that a counterparty to a hedging arrangement may fail to honor its obligations or that we could be required to fund our contractual payment obligations under such arrangements in relatively large amounts or on short notice. Developing an effective interest rate risk strategy is complex and no strategy can completely insulate us from risks associated with interest rate fluctuations. There can be no assurance that our hedging activities will have the desired beneficial impact on our results of operations, liquidity or financial condition. Termination of these hedging agreements typically involves costs, such as transaction fees or breakage costs.

Risks Relating to Income Taxes

Simon and certain subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership have elected to be taxed as REITs in the United States and certain international operations also are structured to be taxed in a manner similar to the REIT structure. The failure to maintain Simon’s or these subsidiaries’ qualifications as REITs or changes in local tax laws or regulations in certain of our international operations could result in adverse tax consequences.

We are subject to certain income-based taxes, both domestically and internationally, and other taxes, including state and local taxes, franchise taxes, and withholding taxes on dividends from certain of our international investments. We currently follow local tax laws and regulations in various domestic and international jurisdictions. Should these laws or regulations change, the amount of taxes we pay may increase accordingly.

In the United States, Simon and certain subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership have elected to be taxed as REITs under Sections 856 through 860 of the Internal Revenue Code. We believe Simon and these subsidiaries have been organized and operated in a manner which allows them to qualify for taxation as REITs under the Internal Revenue Code. We intend to continue to operate in this manner. However, qualification and taxation as REITs depend upon the ability of Simon and these subsidiaries to satisfy several requirements (some of which are outside our control), including tests related to our annual operating results, asset diversification, distribution levels and diversity of stock ownership. The various REIT qualification tests required by the Internal Revenue Code are highly technical and complex. Accordingly, there can be no assurance that Simon or any of these subsidiaries has operated in accordance with these requirements or will continue to operate in a manner so as to qualify or remain qualified as a REIT.

15


 

If Simon or any of these subsidiaries fail to comply with those provisions, Simon or any such subsidiary may be subject to monetary penalties or ultimately to possible disqualification as REITs. If such events occur, and if available relief provisions do not apply:

·

Simon or any such subsidiary will not be allowed a deduction for distributions to stockholders in computing taxable income;

·

Simon or any such subsidiary will be subject to corporate level income tax, including any applicable alternative minimum tax, on taxable income at regular corporate rates; and

·

unless entitled to relief under relevant statutory provisions, Simon or any such subsidiary will also be disqualified from treatment as REITs for the four taxable years following the year during which qualification was lost.

Moreover, a failure by any of these subsidiaries to qualify as a REIT would also cause Simon to fail to qualify as a REIT, and the same adverse consequences would apply to it and its stockholders. 

Legislative, administrative, regulatory or other actions affecting REITs, including positions taken by the IRS, could have a material adverse effect on us or our investors.

The rules dealing with U.S. federal income taxation are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process, and by the IRS and the Treasury. Changes to the tax laws or interpretations thereof by the IRS and the Treasury, with or without retroactive application, could materially and adversely affect us or our investors. New legislation, Treasury regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions could significantly and negatively affect the ability of Simon and certain subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership to qualify to be taxed as REITs and/or the U.S. federal income tax consequences to us and our investors of such qualification.

REIT distribution requirements could adversely affect our liquidity and our ability to execute our business plan.

In order for Simon and certain subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership to qualify to be taxed as REITs, and assuming that certain other requirements are also satisfied, Simon and each such subsidiary generally must distribute at least 90% of their respective REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding any net capital gains, to their respective equity holders each year. To this point, Simon and each such subsidiary have historically distributed at least 100% of taxable income and thereby avoided income tax altogether. To the extent that Simon or any such subsidiary satisfies this distribution requirement and qualifies for taxation as a REIT, but distributes less than 100% of its REIT taxable income, Simon or any such subsidiary will be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax on its undistributed net taxable income and could be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax if the actual amount that is distributed to equity holders in a calendar year is less than “the required minimum distribution amount” specified under U.S. federal income tax laws. We intend to make distributions to the equity holders of Simon and the aforementioned subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership to comply with the REIT requirements of the Internal Revenue Code.

From time to time, Simon and the aforementioned subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership might generate taxable income greater than their respective cash flow as a result of differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash or the effect of nondeductible capital expenditures, the creation of reserves, or required debt or amortization payments. If Simon and these subsidiaries do not have other funds available in these situations, Simon and these subsidiaries could be required to access capital on unfavorable terms (the receipt of which cannot be assured), sell assets at disadvantageous prices, distribute amounts that would otherwise be invested in future acquisitions, capital expenditures or repayment of debt, or make taxable distributions of capital stock or debt securities to make distributions sufficient to enable them to pay out enough of their respective REIT taxable income to satisfy the REIT distribution requirement and avoid corporate income tax and the 4% excise tax in a particular year. These alternatives could increase costs or reduce our equity. Further, amounts distributed will not be available to fund the growth of our business. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may adversely affect our liquidity and our ability to execute our business plan.

Complying with REIT requirements might cause us to forego otherwise attractive acquisition opportunities or liquidate otherwise attractive investments.

To qualify to be taxed as REITs for U.S. federal income tax purposes, Simon and certain subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership must ensure that, at the end of each calendar quarter, at least 75% of the value of their respective

16


 

assets consist of cash, cash items, government securities and “real estate assets” (as defined in the Internal Revenue Code), including certain mortgage loans and securities. The remainder of their respective investments (other than government securities, qualified real estate assets and securities issued by a taxable REIT subsidiary, or TRS) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer.

Additionally, in general, no more than 5% of the value of Simon’s and these subsidiaries’ total assets (other than government securities, qualified real estate assets and securities issued by a TRS) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, and no more than 25% (20% for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017) of the value of their respective total assets can be represented by securities of one or more TRSs. If Simon or any of these subsidiaries fails to comply with these requirements at the end of any calendar quarter, Simon or any such subsidiary must correct the failure within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter or qualify for certain statutory relief provisions to avoid losing its REIT qualification and suffering adverse tax consequences. As a result, we might be required to liquidate or forego otherwise attractive investments. These actions could have the effect of reducing our income and amounts available for distribution to equity holders.

In addition to the asset tests set forth above, to qualify to be taxed as REITs, Simon and these subsidiaries must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the sources of their respective income, the amounts they distribute to equity holders and the ownership of their respective shares. We might be unable to pursue investments that would be otherwise advantageous to us in order to satisfy the source‑of‑income or asset‑diversification requirements for qualifying as REITs. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to make certain attractive investments.

Partnership tax audit rules could have a material adverse effect on us.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 changes the rules applicable to U.S. federal income tax audits of partnerships. Under the rules (which are generally effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017), among other changes and subject to certain exceptions, any audit adjustment to items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit of a partnership (and any partner’s distributive share thereof) is determined, and taxes, interest, or penalties attributable thereto could be assessed and collected, at the partnership level. Although it is uncertain how these rules will be implemented, it is possible that they could result in partnerships in which we directly or indirectly invest, being required to pay additional taxes, interest and penalties as a result of an audit adjustment, and we, as a direct or indirect partner of these partnerships, could be required to bear the economic burden of those taxes, interest, and penalties even though Simon and certain subsidiaries of the Operating Partnership, as REITs, may not otherwise have been required to pay additional corporate‑level taxes had they owned the assets of the partnership directly. The partnership tax audit rules will apply to the Operating Partnership and its subsidiaries that are classified as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The changes created by these rules are sweeping and in many respects dependent on the promulgation of future regulations or other guidance by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, or the Treasury, and, accordingly, there can be no assurance that these rules will not have a material adverse effect on us.

Risks Relating to Joint Ventures

We have limited control with respect to some properties that are partially owned or managed by third parties, which may adversely affect our ability to sell or refinance them.

As of December 31, 2016, we owned interests in 95 income‑producing properties with other parties. Of those, 17 properties are included in our consolidated financial statements. We account for the other 78 properties, or the joint venture properties, as well as our investments in Klépierre (a publicly traded, Paris-based real estate company), Aéropostale, and HBS Global Properties, or HBS, using the equity method of accounting. We serve as general partner or property manager for 57 of these 78 joint venture properties; however, certain major decisions, such as approving the operating budget and selling, refinancing and redeveloping the properties, require the consent of the other owners. Of the joint venture properties for which we do not serve as general partner or property manager, 17 are in our international joint ventures. These international properties are managed locally by joint ventures in which we share control of the properties with our partner. The other owners have participating rights that we consider substantive for purposes of determining control over the joint venture properties’ assets. The remaining joint venture properties, Klépierre, and our joint ventures with Aéropostale and HBS, are managed by third parties.

These investments, and other future similar investments could involve risks that would not be present were a third party not involved, including the possibility that partners or other owners might become bankrupt, suffer a deterioration in their creditworthiness, or fail to fund their share of required capital contributions. Partners or other owners could have

17


 

economic or other business interests or goals that are inconsistent with our own business interests or goals, and could be in a position to take actions contrary to our policies or objectives.

These investments, and other future similar investments, also have the potential risk of creating impasses on decisions, such as a sale or financing, because neither we nor our partner or other owner has full control over the partnership or joint venture. Disputes between us and partners or other owners might result in litigation or arbitration that could increase our expenses and prevent Simon’s officers and/or directors from focusing their time and efforts on our business. Consequently, actions by, or disputes with, partners or other owners might result in subjecting properties owned by the partnership or joint venture to additional risk. In addition, we risk the possibility of being liable for the actions of our partners or other owners.

The Operating Partnership guarantees debt or otherwise provides support for a number of joint venture properties.

Joint venture debt is the liability of the joint venture and is typically secured by a mortgage on the joint venture property, which is non‑recourse to us. Nevertheless, the joint venture’s failure to satisfy its debt obligations could result in the loss of our investment therein. As of December 31, 2016, the Operating Partnership guaranteed joint venture related mortgage indebtedness of $400.5 million (of which we have a right of recovery from our joint venture partners of $87.3 million). A default by a joint venture under its debt obligations would expose us to liability under a guaranty. We may elect to fund cash needs of a joint venture through equity contributions (generally on a basis proportionate to our ownership interests), advances or partner loans, although such fundings are not typically required contractually or otherwise.

Risks Relating to Environmental Matters

As owners of real estate, we can face liabilities for environmental contamination.

U.S. federal, state and local laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment may require us, as a current or previous owner or operator of real property, to investigate and clean up hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum product releases at a property or at impacted neighboring properties. These laws often impose liability regardless of whether the property owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of hazardous or toxic substances. These laws and regulations may require the abatement or removal of asbestos containing materials in the event of damage, demolition or renovation, reconstruction or expansion of a property and also govern emissions of and exposure to asbestos fibers in the air. Those laws and regulations also govern the installation, maintenance and removal of underground storage tanks used to store waste oils or other petroleum products. Many of our properties contain, or at one time contained, asbestos containing materials or underground storage tanks (primarily related to auto service center establishments or emergency electrical generation equipment). We may be subject to regulatory action and may also be held liable to third parties for personal injury or property damage incurred by the parties in connection with any such laws and regulations or hazardous or toxic substances. The costs of investigation, removal or remediation of hazardous or toxic substances, and related liabilities, may be substantial and could materially and adversely affect us. The presence of hazardous or toxic substances, or the failure to remediate the related contamination, may also adversely affect our ability to sell, lease or redevelop a property or to borrow money using a property as collateral.

Our efforts to identify environmental liabilities may not be successful.

Although we believe that our portfolio is in substantial compliance with U.S. federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations regarding hazardous or toxic substances, this belief is based on limited testing. Nearly all of our properties have been subjected to Phase I or similar environmental audits. These environmental audits have not revealed, nor are we aware of, any environmental liability that we believe is reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on us. However, we cannot assure you that:

·

previous environmental studies with respect to the portfolio reveal all potential environmental liabilities;

·

any previous owner, occupant or tenant of a property did not create any material environmental condition not known to us;

·

the current environmental condition of the portfolio will not be affected by tenants and occupants, by the condition of nearby properties, or by other unrelated third parties; or

·

future uses or conditions (including, without limitation, changes in applicable environmental laws and regulations or the interpretation thereof) will not result in environmental liabilities.

18


 

Other Factors Affecting Our Business

Some of our potential losses may not be covered by insurance.

We maintain insurance coverage with third‑party carriers who provide a portion of the coverage for specific layers of potential losses, including commercial general liability, fire, flood, extended coverage and rental loss insurance on all of our properties in the United States. The initial portion of coverage not provided by third‑party carriers is either insured through our wholly‑owned captive insurance company or other financial arrangements controlled by us. A third‑party carrier has, in turn, agreed to provide, if required, evidence of coverage for this layer of losses under the terms and conditions of the carrier’s policy. A similar policy written through our captive insurance entity also provides initial coverage for property insurance and certain windstorm risks at the properties located in coastal windstorm locations.

There are some types of losses, including lease and other contract claims, which generally are not insured or are subject to large deductibles. If an uninsured loss or a loss in excess of insured limits occurs, we could lose all or a portion of the capital we have invested in a property, as well as the anticipated future revenue it could generate but may remain obligated for any mortgage debt or other financial obligation related to the property.

We currently maintain insurance coverage against acts of terrorism on all of our properties in the United States on an “all risk” basis in the amount of up to $1 billion. The current U.S. federal laws which provide this coverage are expected to operate through 2020. However, the U.S. government could in the future terminate its reinsurance of terrorism, which would increase the risk of uninsured losses for terrorist acts. Despite the existence of this insurance coverage, any threatened or actual terrorist attacks where we operate could materially and adversely affect us.

We face risks associated with security breaches through cyber‑attacks, cyber intrusions or otherwise, as well as other significant disruptions of our information technology (IT) networks and related systems.

We face risks associated with security breaches, whether through cyber‑attacks or cyber intrusions over the Internet, malware, computer viruses, attachments to e‑mails, persons inside our organization or persons with access to systems, and other significant disruptions of our IT networks and related systems. Our IT networks and related systems are essential to the operation of our business and our ability to perform day‑to‑day operations and, in some cases, may be critical to the operations of certain of our tenants. Although we make efforts to maintain the security and integrity of these types of IT networks and related systems, and we have implemented various measures to manage the risk of a security breach or disruption, there can be no assurance that our security efforts and measures will be effective or that attempted security breaches or disruptions would not be successful or damaging. Even the most well protected information, networks, systems and facilities remain potentially vulnerable because the techniques used in such attempted security breaches evolve and generally are not recognized until launched against a target, and in some cases are designed not to be detected and, in fact, may not be detected. Accordingly, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or to implement adequate security barriers or other preventative measures, and thus it is impossible for us to entirely mitigate this risk.

A breach or significant and extended disruption in the functioning of our systems, including our primary website, could damage our reputation and cause us to lose customers, tenants and revenues, generate third party claims, result in the unintended and/or unauthorized public disclosure or the misappropriation of proprietary, personal identifying and confidential information, and require us to incur significant expenses to address and remediate or otherwise resolve these kinds of issues, and we may not be able to recover these expenses in whole or in any part from our service providers or responsible parties, or their or our insurers.

Our success depends, in part, on our ability to attract and retain talented employees, and the loss of any one of our key personnel could adversely impact our business.

The success of our business depends, in part, on the leadership and performance of our executive management team and key employees, and our ability to attract, retain and motivate talented employees could significantly impact our future performance. Competition for these individuals is intense, and we cannot assure you that we will retain our executive management team and other key employees or that we will be able to attract and retain other highly qualified individuals for these positions in the future. Losing any one or more of these persons could have a material adverse effect on us.

Provisions in Simon’s charter and by‑laws and in the Operating Partnership’s partnership agreement could prevent a change of control.

Simon’s charter contains a general restriction on the accumulation of shares in excess of 8% of its capital stock. The charter permits the members of the Simon family and related persons to own up to 18% of Simon’s capital stock.

19


 

Ownership is determined by the lower of the number of outstanding shares, voting power or value controlled. Simon’s Board of Directors may, by majority vote, permit exceptions to those levels in circumstances where Simon’s Board of Directors determines that Simon’s ability to qualify as a REIT will not be jeopardized. These restrictions on ownership may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a transaction or a change in control that might otherwise be in the best interest of Simon’s stockholders or the Operating Partnership’s unitholders or preferred unitholders. Other provisions of Simon’s charter and by‑laws could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control even if some of Simon’s stockholders or the Operating Partnership’s unitholders or preferred unitholders deem such a change to be in their best interests. These include provisions preventing holders of Simon’s common stock from acting by written consent and requiring that up to four directors in the aggregate may be elected by holders of Class B common stock. In addition, certain provisions of the Operating Partnership’s partnership agreement could have the effect of delaying or preventing a change of control. These include a provision requiring the consent of a majority in interest of units in order for Simon, as general partner of the Operating Partnership, to, among other matters, engage in a merger transaction or sell all or substantially all of its assets.

We face possible risks associated with climate change.

We cannot determine with certainty whether global warming or cooling is occurring and, if so, at what rate. To the extent climate change causes changes in weather patterns, our properties in certain markets could experience increases in storm intensity and rising sea‑levels. Over time, these conditions could result in volatile or decreased demand for retail space at certain of our properties or, in extreme cases, our inability to operate the properties at all. Climate change may also have indirect effects on our business by increasing the cost of (or making unavailable) insurance on favorable terms, or at all, and increasing the cost of energy and snow removal at our properties. Moreover, compliance with new laws or regulations related to climate change, including compliance with “green” building codes, may require us to make improvements to our existing properties or increase taxes and fees assessed on us or our properties. At this time, there can be no assurance that climate change will not have a material adverse effect on us.

The United Kingdom’s pending departure from the European Union could have a material adverse effect on us.

The United Kingdom held a referendum on June 23, 2016 in which a majority of voters voted to exit the European Union, or Brexit, which has contributed to uncertainty in the global financial markets and affected markets in the United Kingdom in particular. Negotiations are expected to commence to determine the future terms of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union, including, among other things, the terms of trade between the United Kingdom and the European Union. The effects of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union will depend on agreements the United Kingdom makes to retain access to European Union markets either during a transitional period or more permanently. Brexit is likely to continue to impact the United Kingdom, European and worldwide economic and market conditions, and could contribute to greater instability in global financial and foreign exchange markets before and after the terms of the United Kingdom’s future relationships with the European Union are settled. Further, financial and other markets may suffer losses as a result of other countries determining to withdraw from the European Union or from any future significant changes to the European Union’s structure and/or regulations. In addition, Brexit could lead to legal uncertainty as the United Kingdom determines which European Union laws to replace or replicate.

We currently hold, and may acquire additional, equity interests in properties located in the United Kingdom and Europe, as well as other investments that are denominated in Pounds Sterling and Euros. In addition, our Operating Partnership has issued, and may issue in the future, senior unsecured notes denominated in Euros. Any of the effects of Brexit described above, and others we cannot anticipate, could have a material adverse effect on us, including the value of our properties and investments and our potential growth in Europe, and could amplify the currency risks faced by us.

Item 1B.  Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 2.  Properties

United States Properties

Our U.S. properties primarily consist of malls, Premium Outlets, The Mills, lifestyle centers and other retail properties. These properties contain an aggregate of approximately 182.3 million square feet of gross leasable area, or GLA.

20


 

Malls typically contain at least one traditional department store anchor or a combination of anchors and big box retailers with a wide variety of smaller stores connecting the anchors. Additional stores are usually located along the perimeter of the parking area. Our 108 malls are generally enclosed centers and range in size from approximately 260,000 to 2.7 million square feet of GLA. Our malls contain in the aggregate more than 13,600 occupied stores, including 504 anchors, which are predominately national or international retailers.

Premium Outlets generally contain a wide variety of designer and manufacturer stores located in open‑air centers. Our 67 Premium Outlets range in size from approximately 150,000 to 890,000 square feet of GLA. The Premium Outlets are generally located within a close proximity to major metropolitan areas and/or tourist destinations.

The 14 properties in The Mills generally range in size from 1.2 million to 2.3 million square feet of GLA and are located in major metropolitan areas. They have a combination of traditional mall, outlet center, and big box retailers and entertainment uses.

We also have interests in four lifestyle centers and 13 domestic other retail properties. The lifestyle centers range in size from 160,000 to 900,000 square feet of GLA. The other retail properties range in size from approximately 160,000 to 850,000 square feet of GLA and are considered non‑core to our business model. In total, the lifestyle centers and other retail properties represent approximately 1.0% of our total operating income before depreciation and amortization.

As of December 31, 2016, approximately 96.8% of the owned GLA in malls and Premium Outlets was leased and approximately 98.4% of the owned GLA for The Mills was leased.

We wholly own 134 of our properties, effectively control 13 properties in which we have a joint venture interest, and hold the remaining 59 properties through unconsolidated joint venture interests. We are the managing or co‑managing general partner or member of 202 properties in the United States. Certain of our joint venture properties are subject to various rights of first refusal, buy‑sell provisions, put and call rights, or other sale or marketing rights for partners which are customary in real estate partnership agreements and the industry. We and our partners in these joint ventures may initiate these provisions (subject to any applicable lock up or similar restrictions) which may result in either the sale of our interest or the use of available cash or borrowings, or the use of Operating Partnership units, to acquire the joint venture interest from our partner.

On April 13, 2015, we announced a joint venture with Sears Holdings, or Sears, whereby Sears contributed 10 of its properties located at our malls to the joint venture in exchange for a 50% noncontrolling interest in the joint venture. Seritage Growth Properties, or Seritage, a public REIT recently formed by Sears, now holds Sears’ interest in the joint venture.

 

 

21


 

Table of Contents

Simon Property Group, Inc.

Simon Property Group, L.P.

Property Table

U.S. Properties

The following property table summarizes certain data for our malls, Premium Outlets, The Mills, lifestyle centers and other retail properties located in the United States, including Puerto Rico, as of December 31, 2016.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ownership

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interest

 

 

 

Year Built

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Expiration if

 

Legal

 

or

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

Property Name

  

State

  

City (CBSA)

  

Lease) (3)

  

Ownership

  

Acquired

  

Occupancy (5)

  

Total GLA

  

Retail Anchors and Selected Major Tenants

 

Malls

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.

Apple Blossom Mall

 

VA

 

Winchester

 

Fee

 

49.1

% (4)

Acquired 1999

 

94.4

473,103

 

Belk, JCPenney, Sears, Carmike Cinemas

2.

Auburn Mall

 

MA

 

Auburn

 

Fee

 

56.4

% (4)

Acquired 1999

 

100.0

585,707

 

Macy's, Sears, (8)

3.

Aventura Mall (1) (13)

 

FL

 

Miami Beach (Miami)

 

Fee

 

33.3

% (4)

Built 1983

 

98.9

2,087,694

 

Bloomingdale's, Macy's (9), JCPenney, Sears, Nordstrom, Equinox Fitness Clubs, AMC Theatres

4.

Avenues, The

 

FL

 

Jacksonville

 

Fee

 

25.0

% (4) (2)

Built 1990

 

96.5

1,112,428

 

Belk, Dillard's, JCPenney, Sears, Forever 21

5.

Barton Creek Square

 

TX

 

Austin

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Built 1981

 

98.3

1,429,503

 

Nordstrom, Macy's, Dillard's (9), JCPenney, Sears, AMC Theatre

6.

Battlefield Mall

 

MO

 

Springfield

 

Fee and Ground Lease (2056)

 

100.0

%  

Built 1970

 

95.0

1,201,327

 

Macy's, Dillard's (9), JCPenney, Sears

7.

Bay Park Square

 

WI

 

Green Bay

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Built 1980

 

92.2

711,918

 

Younkers (9), Kohl's, ShopKo, Marcus Cinema 16

8.

Brea Mall

 

CA

 

Brea (Los Angeles)

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Acquired 1998

 

96.1

1,319,447

 

Nordstrom, Macy's (9), JCPenney, Sears

9.

Briarwood Mall

 

MI

 

Ann Arbor

 

Fee

 

50.0

% (4)

Acquired 2007

 

98.7

980,224

 

Macy's, JCPenney, Sears, Von Maur

10.

Brickell City Centre

 

FL

 

Miami

 

Fee

 

25.0

% (4)

Built 2016

 

68.3

476,015

 

Saks Fifth Avenue, Cinemex (6)

11.

Broadway Square

 

TX

 

Tyler

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Acquired 1994

 

97.2

628,796

 

Dillard's, JCPenney, Sears

12.

Burlington Mall

 

MA

 

Burlington (Boston)

 

Fee and Ground Lease (2048) (7)

 

100.0

%  

Acquired 1998

 

97.2

1,313,125

 

Macy's, Lord & Taylor, Sears, Nordstrom, Crate & Barrel, Primark, Arhaus Furniture

13.

Cape Cod Mall

 

MA

 

Hyannis

 

Fee and Ground Leases (2029-2073) (7)

 

56.4

% (4)

Acquired 1999

 

93.0

728,380

 

Macy's (9), Sears, Best Buy, Marshalls, Barnes & Noble, Regal Cinema

14.

Castleton Square

 

IN

 

Indianapolis

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Built 1972

 

96.8

1,381,812

 

Macy's, Von Maur, JCPenney, Sears, Dick's Sporting Goods, AMC Theatres

15.

Cielo Vista Mall

 

TX

 

El Paso

 

Fee and Ground Lease (2027) (7)

 

100.0

%  

Built 1974

 

99.8

1,245,292

 

Macy's, Dillard's (9), JCPenney, Sears, Cinemark Theatres

16.

Coconut Point

 

FL

 

Estero

 

Fee

 

50.0

% (4)

Built 2006

 

94.2

1,205,363

 

Dillard's, Barnes & Noble, Bed Bath & Beyond, Best Buy, DSW, Office Max, PetsMart, Ross, Cost Plus World Market, T.J. Maxx, Hollywood Theatres, Super Target, Michael's, (8)

17.

Coddingtown Mall

 

CA

 

Santa Rosa

 

Fee

 

50.0

% (4)

Acquired 2005

 

67.8

822,133

 

Macy's, JCPenney, Whole Foods, Target, Nordstrom Rack, Dick's Sporting Goods, Crunch Fitness (6)

18.

College Mall

 

IN

 

Bloomington

 

Fee and Ground Lease (2048) (7)

 

100.0

%  

Built 1965

 

95.8

537,064

 

Macy's, Target, Dick's Sporting Goods, Bed Bath & Beyond, 365 by Whole Foods (6), Ulta (6)

19.

Columbia Center

 

WA

 

Kennewick

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Acquired 1987

 

96.2

795,305

 

Macy's (9), JCPenney, Sears, Barnes & Noble, Regal Cinema, DSW, Home Goods

20.

Copley Place

 

MA

 

Boston

 

Fee

 

94.4

% (12)

Acquired 2002

 

85.5

1,255,797

 

Neiman Marcus, Barneys New York

21.

Coral Square

 

FL

 

Coral Springs (Miami)

 

Fee

 

97.2

%  

Built 1984

 

96.9

943,891

 

Macy's (9), JCPenney, Sears, Kohl's

22.

Cordova Mall

 

FL

 

Pensacola

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Acquired 1998

 

99.7

928,709

 

Dillard's, Belk, Best Buy, Bed Bath & Beyond, Cost Plus World Market, Ross, Dick's Sporting Goods

23.

Crystal Mall

 

CT

 

Waterford

 

Fee

 

78.2

% (4)

Acquired 1998

 

86.1

782,786

 

Macy's, JCPenney, Sears, Bed Bath & Beyond, Christmas Tree Shops

24.

Dadeland Mall

 

FL

 

Miami

 

Fee

 

50.0

% (4)

Acquired 1997

 

99.3

1,498,485

 

Saks Fifth Avenue, Nordstrom, Macy's (9), JCPenney

25.

Del Amo Fashion Center

 

CA

 

Torrance (Los Angeles)

 

Fee

 

50.0

% (4)

Acquired 2007

 

93.8

2,371,068

 

Nordstrom, Macy's (9), JCPenney, Sears, Marshalls (11), Barnes & Noble, JoAnn Fabrics, Crate & Barrel, L.A. Fitness, AMC Theatres, Dick's Sporting Goods (6), Dave & Buster's (6), (8)

26.

Domain, The

 

TX

 

Austin

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Built 2006

 

97.3

1,234,352

 

Neiman Marcus, Macy's, Dillard's, Dick's Sporting Goods, iPic Theaters, Arhaus Furniture, Punch Bowl Social

27.

Dover Mall

 

DE

 

Dover

 

Fee and Ground Lease (2041)  (7)

 

68.1

% (4)

Acquired 2007

 

91.5

928,194

 

Macy's, JCPenney, Boscov's, Sears, Carmike Cinemas, Dick's Sporting Goods

 

22


 

Table of Contents

Simon Property Group, Inc.

Simon Property Group, L.P.

Property Table

U.S. Properties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ownership

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interest

 

 

 

Year Built

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Expiration if

 

Legal

 

or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property Name

  

State

  

City (CBSA)

  

Lease) (3)

  

Ownership

  

Acquired

  

Occupancy (5)

  

Total GLA

  

Retail Anchors and Selected Major Tenants

28.

Emerald Square

 

MA

 

North Attleboro (Providence, RI)

 

Fee

 

56.4

% (4)

Acquired 1999

 

88.3

1022435

 

Macy's (9), JCPenney, Sears

29.

Empire Mall

 

SD

 

Sioux Falls

 

Fee and Ground Lease (2033) (7)

 

100.0

%  

Acquired 1998

 

96.1

1,125,718

 

Macy's, Younkers, JCPenney, Sears, Gordmans, Hy-Vee, Dick's Sporting Goods

30.

Falls, The

 

FL

 

Miami

 

Fee

 

50.0

% (4)

Acquired 2007

 

95.8

838,459

 

Bloomingdale's, Macy's, Regal Cinema, The Fresh Market

31.

Fashion Centre at Pentagon City, The

 

VA

 

Arlington (Washington, DC)

 

Fee

 

42.5

% (4)

Built 1989

 

97.0

1,038,547

 

Nordstrom, Macy's

32.

Fashion Mall at Keystone, The

 

IN

 

Indianapolis

 

Fee and Ground Lease (2067) (7)

 

100.0

%  

Acquired 1997

 

95.1

710,587

 

Saks Fifth Avenue, Crate & Barrel, Nordstrom, Keystone Art Cinema

33.

Fashion Valley

 

CA

 

San Diego

 

Fee

 

50.0

% (4)

Acquired 2001

 

97.7

1,720,533

 

Forever 21, Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdale's, Nordstrom, Macy's, JCPenney, AMC Theatres, The Container Store

34.

Firewheel Town Center

 

TX

 

Garland (Dallas)

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Built 2005

 

97.4

998,347

 

Dillard's, Macy's, Barnes & Noble, DSW, Cost Plus World Market, AMC Theatres, Dick's Sporting Goods, Ethan Allen, Toys 'R Us/Babies 'R Us

35.

Florida Mall, The

 

FL

 

Orlando

 

Fee

 

50.0

% (4)

Built 1986

 

98.5

1,699,571

 

Macy's, Dillard's, JCPenney, Sears, H&M, Forever 21, Zara, American Girl, Dick's Sporting Goods, Crayola Experience

36.

Forum Shops at Caesars, The

 

NV

 

Las Vegas

 

Ground Lease (2050)

 

100.0

%  

Built 1992

 

98.2

677,138

 

 

37.

Galleria, The

 

TX

 

Houston

 

Fee

 

50.4

% (4)

Acquired 2002

 

97.6

1,926,563

 

Saks Fifth Avenue, Neiman Marcus, Nordstrom, Macy's

38.

Greenwood Park Mall

 

IN

 

Greenwood (Indianapolis)

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Acquired 1979

 

97.3

1,287,869

 

Macy's, Von Maur, JCPenney, Sears, Dick's Sporting Goods, Barnes & Noble, Regal Cinema

39.

Haywood Mall

 

SC

 

Greenville

 

Fee and Ground Lease (2067) (7)

 

100.0

%  

Acquired 1998

 

97.5

1,237,350

 

Macy's, Dillard's, JCPenney, Sears, Belk

40.

Independence Center

 

MO

 

Independence (Kansas City)

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Acquired 1994

 

93.4

881,980

 

Dillard's, Macy's, Sears, Dick's Sporting Goods

41.

Ingram Park Mall

 

TX

 

San Antonio

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Built 1979

 

98.1

1,120,444

 

Dillard's, Macy's, JCPenney, Sears, Bealls, (8)

42.

King of Prussia

 

PA

 

King of Prussia (Philadelphia)

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Acquired 2003

 

92.2

2,651,631

 

Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdale's, Nordstrom, Lord & Taylor, Macy's, JCPenney, Crate & Barrel, Arhaus Furniture, The Container Store, Dick's Sporting Goods, Primark

43.

La Plaza Mall (13)

 

TX

 

McAllen

 

Fee and Ground Lease (2040) (7)

 

100.0

%  

Built 1976

 

97.4

1,089,619

 

Macy's (9), Dillard's, JCPenney, Joe Brand

44.

Lakeline Mall

 

TX

 

Cedar Park (Austin)

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Built 1995

 

98.0

1,097,799

 

Dillard's (9), Macy's, JCPenney, Sears, AMC Theatres (6)

45.

Lehigh Valley Mall

 

PA

 

Whitehall

 

Fee

 

50.0

% (4)

Acquired 2003

 

97.7

1,180,840

 

Macy's, JCPenney, Boscov's, Barnes & Noble, hhgregg, Babies 'R Us

46.

Lenox Square

 

GA

 

Atlanta

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Acquired 1998

 

98.7

1,558,678

 

Neiman Marcus, Bloomingdale's, Macy's

47.

Livingston Mall

 

NJ

 

Livingston (New York)

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Acquired 1998

 

96.5

978,034

 

Macy's, Lord & Taylor, Sears, Barnes & Noble

48.

Mall at Rockingham Park, The

 

NH

 

Salem (Boston)

 

Fee

 

28.2

% (4)

Acquired 1999

 

96.2

1,024,171

 

JCPenney, Sears, Macy's, Lord & Taylor, Dick's Sporting Goods, Cinemark (6)

49.

Mall at Tuttle Crossing, The

 

OH

 

Dublin (Columbus)

 

Fee

 

50.0

% (4)

Acquired 2007

 

96.3

1,123,036

 

Macy's (9), JCPenney, Sears

50.

Mall of Georgia

 

GA

 

Buford (Atlanta)

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Built 1999

 

99.9

1,824,672

 

Dillard's, Macy's, JCPenney, Belk, Dick's Sporting Goods, Barnes & Noble, Haverty's Furniture, Regal Cinema, Von Maur

51.

Mall of New Hampshire, The

 

NH

 

Manchester

 

Fee

 

56.4

% (4)

Acquired 1999

 

91.7

812,213

 

Macy's, JCPenney, Sears, Best Buy

52.

McCain Mall

 

AR

 

N. Little Rock

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Built 1973

 

95.6

793,736

 

Dillard's, JCPenney, Sears, Regal Cinema

53.

Meadowood Mall

 

NV

 

Reno

 

Fee

 

50.0

% (4)

Acquired 2007

 

98.5

899,798

 

Macy's (9), Sears, JCPenney, Dick's Sporting Goods

54.

Menlo Park Mall

 

NJ

 

Edison (New York)

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Acquired 1997

 

97.5

1,333,989

 

Nordstrom, Macy's, Barnes & Noble, AMC Dine-In Theatre

23


 

Table of Contents

Simon Property Group, Inc.

Simon Property Group, L.P.

Property Table

U.S. Properties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ownership Interest

 

 

 

Year Built

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Expiration if

 

Legal

 

or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property Name

  

State

  

City (CBSA)

  

Lease) (3)

  

Ownership

  

Acquired

  

Occupancy (5)

  

Total GLA

  

Retail Anchors and Selected Major Tenants

55.

Miami International Mall

 

FL

 

Miami

 

Fee

 

47.8

% (4)

Built 1982

 

98.6

1,082,555

 

Macy's (9), JCPenney, Sears, Kohl's

56.

Midland Park Mall

 

TX

 

Midland

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Built 1980

 

98.3

629,654

 

Dillard's (9), JCPenney, Sears, Bealls, Ross

57.

Miller Hill Mall

 

MN

 

Duluth

 

Fee

 

100.0

Built 1973

 

99.1

831,911

 

JCPenney, Sears, Younkers, Barnes & Noble, DSW, Dick's Sporting Goods

58.

Montgomery Mall

 

PA

 

North Wales (Philadelphia)

 

Fee

 

79.4

Acquired 2003

 

89.9

1,102,755

 

Macy's, JCPenney, Sears, Dick's Sporting Goods, Wegmans

59.

North East Mall

 

TX

 

Hurst (Dallas)

 

Fee

 

100.0

Built 1971

 

98.0

1,669,350

 

Nordstrom, Dillard's, Macy's, JCPenney, Sears, Dick's Sporting Goods, Rave Theatre

60.

Northgate Mall

 

WA

 

Seattle

 

Fee

 

100.0

Acquired 1987

 

100.0

1,045,838

 

Nordstrom, Macy's, JCPenney, Barnes & Noble, Bed Bath & Beyond, DSW, Nordstrom Rack

61.

Northshore Mall

 

MA

 

Peabody (Boston)

 

Fee

 

56.4

% (4)

Acquired 1999

 

94.2

1,591,350

 

JCPenney, Sears, Nordstrom, Macy's (9), Barnes & Noble, Toys 'R Us, Shaw's Grocery, The Container Store, DSW

62.

Ocean County Mall

 

NJ

 

Toms River (New York)

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Acquired 1998

 

93.7

898,525

 

Macy's, Boscov's, JCPenney, Sears

63.

Orland Square

 

IL

 

Orland Park (Chicago)

 

Fee

 

100.0

Acquired 1997

 

96.9

1,230,094

 

Macy's, Carson's, JCPenney, Sears, Dave & Buster's

64.

Oxford Valley Mall

 

PA

 

Langhorne (Philadelphia)

 

Fee

 

85.5

Acquired 2003

 

93.6

1,336,364

 

Macy's, JCPenney, Sears, United Artists Theatre, (8)

65.

Penn Square Mall

 

OK

 

Oklahoma City

 

Ground Lease (2060)

 

94.5

Acquired 2002

 

100.0

1,063,630

 

Macy's, Dillard's (9), JCPenney, AMC Theatres

66.

Pheasant Lane Mall

 

NH

 

Nashua

 

-

 

 —

% (14)

Acquired 2002

 

92.4

979,426

 

JCPenney, Sears, Target, Macy's, Dick's Sporting Goods

67.

Phipps Plaza

 

GA

 

Atlanta

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Acquired 1998

 

97.7

823,053

 

Saks Fifth Avenue, Nordstrom, Belk, AMC Theatres, Arhaus Furniture, Legoland Discovery Center

68.

Plaza Carolina

 

PR

 

Carolina (San Juan)

 

Fee

 

100.0

Acquired 2004

 

95.9

1,158,121

 

JCPenney, Sears, Tiendas Capri, Econo, Best Buy, T.J. Maxx, DSW, (8)

69.

Prien Lake Mall

 

LA

 

Lake Charles

 

Fee and Ground Lease (2040) (7)

 

100.0

Built 1972

 

98.6

848,263

 

Dillard's, JCPenney, Sears, Cinemark Theatres, Kohl's, Dick's Sporting Goods

70.

Quaker Bridge Mall

 

NJ

 

Lawrenceville

 

Fee

 

50.0

% (4)

Acquired 2003

 

97.0

1,079,542

 

Macy's, Lord & Taylor, JCPenney, Sears

71.

Rockaway Townsquare

 

NJ

 

Rockaway (New York)

 

Fee

 

100.0

%  

Acquired 1998

 

94.9

1,245,741

 

Macy's, Lord & Taylor, JCPenney, Sears, Raymour & Flanigan

72.

Roosevelt Field

 

NY

 

Garden City (New York)

 

Fee and Ground Lease (2090) (7)

 

100.0

Acquired 1998

 

96.8

2,366,692

 

Bloomingdale's (9), Nordstrom, Macy's, JCPenney, Dick's Sporting Goods, AMC Entertainment, XSport Fitness, Neiman Marcus

73.

Ross Park Mall

 

PA

 

Pittsburgh

 

Fee

 

100.0

Built 1986

 

99.3

1,239,681

 

JCPenney, Sears, Nordstrom, L.L. Bean, Macy's, Crate & Barrel

74.

Santa Rosa Plaza

 

CA

 

Santa Rosa

 

Fee

 

100.0

Acquired 1998

 

96.0

692,026

 

Macy's, Sears, Forever 21

75.

Shops at Chestnut Hill, The

 

MA

 

Chestnut Hill (Boston)

 

Fee

 

94.4

Acquired 2002

 

100.0

470,094

 

Bloomingdale's (9)

76.

Shops at Crystals, The

 

NV

 

Las Vegas

 

Fee

 

50.0

% (4)

Acquired 2016

 

89.2

262,354

 

 

77.

Shops at Nanuet, The

 

NY

 

Nanuet

 

Fee

 

100.0

Redeveloped 2013

 

96.5

757,928

 

Macy's, Sears, Fairway Market, Regal Cinema, 24 Hour Fitness

78.

Shops at Mission Viejo, The

 

CA

 

Mission Viejo (Los Angeles)

 

Fee

 

51.0

% (4) 

Built 1979

 

96.2

1,249,749

 

Nordstrom, Macy's (9), Forever 21

79.

Shops at Riverside, The

 

NJ

 

Hackensack (New York)

 

Fee

 

100.0

Acquired 2007

 

94.0

658,261

 

Bloomingdale's, Barnes & Noble, Arhaus Furniture, AMC Theatre (6)

80.

Smith Haven Mall

 

NY

 

Lake Grove (New York)

 

Fee

 

25.0

% (4) (2)

Acquired 1995

 

98.0

1,301,459

 

Macy's (9), JCPenney, Sears, Dick's Sporting Goods, Barnes & Noble, L.L. Bean (6)

81.

Solomon Pond Mall

 

MA

 

Marlborough (Boston)

 

Fee

 

56.4

% (4) 

Acquired 1999

 

94.2

886,472

 

Macy's, JCPenney, Sears, Regal Cinema

82.

South Hills Village

 

PA

 

Pittsburgh

 

Fee

 

100.0

Acquired 1997

 

98.3

1,128,403

 

Macy's (9), Sears, Barnes & Noble, Carmike Cinemas, Dick's Sporting Goods, Target, DSW, Ulta

83.

South Shore Plaza

 

MA

 

Braintree (Boston)

 

Fee

 

100.0

Acquired 1998

 

96.7

1,586,446

 

Macy's, Lord & Taylor, Sears, Nordstrom, Target, DSW, Primark (6)

 

24


 

Table of Contents

Simon Property Group, Inc.

Simon Property Group, L.P.

Property Table

U.S. Properties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ownership Interest

 

 

    

Year Built

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Expiration if

 

Legal

 

or

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Property Name

  

State

  

City (CBSA)

  

Lease) (3)

  

Ownership

  

Acquired

  

Occupancy (5)