10-K 1 bxpandbplp201510-k.htm 10-K 10-K
 
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
 
FORM 10-K
 
ý
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015
OR
¨
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from             to             
Commission File Number: 1-13087 (Boston Properties, Inc.)
Commission File Number: 0-50209 (Boston Properties Limited Partnership)
 
BOSTON PROPERTIES, INC.
BOSTON PROPERTIES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
(Exact name of Registrants as specified in its charter)
 
Boston Properties, Inc.
Delaware
04-2473675
 
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)
 
 
 
Boston Properties Limited Partnership
Delaware
04-3372948
 
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)
 
 
 
 
Prudential Center, 800 Boylston Street, Suite 1900
Boston, Massachusetts
02199-8103
 
(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip Code)
Registrants telephone number, including area code: (617) 236-3300
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Registrant
Title of each class
Name of exchange on which registered
Boston Properties, Inc.
Common Stock, par value $.01 per share
New York Stock Exchange
Boston Properties, Inc.
Depository Shares Each Representing 1/100th of a share of 5.25% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, par value $0.01 per share
New York Stock Exchange
Boston Properties, Inc.
Preferred Stock Purchase Rights
New York Stock Exchange
 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Registrant
Title of each class
Boston Properties Limited Partnership
Units of Limited Partnership
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    
Boston Properties, Inc.:    Yes  ý    No  ¨        Boston Properties Limited Partnership:    Yes  ý    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.    
Boston Properties, Inc.:    Yes  ¨    No  ý        Boston Properties Limited Partnership:    Yes  ¨    No  ý



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.    
Boston Properties, Inc.:    Yes  ý    No  ¨        Boston Properties Limited Partnership:    Yes  ý    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).
Boston Properties, Inc.:    Yes  ý    No  ¨        Boston Properties Limited Partnership:    Yes  ý    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.  ý
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 definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):
Boston Properties, Inc.:    
Large accelerated filer  ý         Accelerated filer  ¨         Non-accelerated filer  ¨         Smaller reporting company  ¨
Boston Properties Limited Partnership:
Large accelerated filer  ¨         Accelerated filer  ¨         Non-accelerated filer  ý         Smaller reporting company  ¨
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).    
Boston Properties, Inc.:    Yes  ¨    No  ý        Boston Properties Limited Partnership:    Yes  ¨    No  ý
As of June 30, 2015, the aggregate market value of the 152,454,431 shares of Common Stock held by non-affiliates of Boston Properties, Inc. was $18,453,084,348 based upon the last reported sale price of $121.04 per share on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2015. (For this computation, Boston Properties, Inc. has excluded the market value of all shares of Common Stock reported as beneficially owned by executive officers and directors of Boston Properties, Inc.; such exclusion shall not be deemed to constitute an admission that any such person is an affiliate of Boston Properties, Inc.)
As of February 22, 2016, there were 153,592,481 shares of Common Stock of Boston Properties, Inc. outstanding.
Because no established market for common units of limited partnership of Boston Properties Limited Partnership exists, there is no market value for such units.
Certain information contained in Boston Properties Inc.’s Proxy Statement relating to its Annual Meeting of Stockholders to be held May 17, 2016 is incorporated by reference in Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Part III. Boston Properties, Inc. intends to file such Proxy Statement with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after the end of its fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.
 



EXPLANATORY NOTE
This report combines the Annual Reports on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 of Boston Properties, Inc. and Boston Properties Limited Partnership. Unless stated otherwise or the context otherwise requires, references to “BXP” mean Boston Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation and real estate investment trust (“REIT”), and references to “BPLP” and the “Operating Partnership” mean Boston Properties Limited Partnership, a Delaware limited partnership. References to the “Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” mean collectively BXP, BPLP and those entities/subsidiaries consolidated by BXP.
BPLP is the entity through which we conduct substantially all of our business and own, either directly or through subsidiaries, substantially all of our assets. BXP is the sole general partner and also a limited partner of BPLP. As the sole general partner of BPLP, BXP has exclusive control of BPLP’s day-to-day management.
As of December 31, 2015, BXP owned an approximate 89.5% ownership interest in BPLP. The remaining approximate 10.5% interest is owned by limited partners. The other limited partners of BPLP are (1) persons who contributed their direct or indirect interests in properties to BPLP in exchange for common units or preferred units of limited partnership interest in BPLP or (2) recipients of long term incentive plan units of BPLP pursuant to BXP’s Stock Option and Incentive Plans. Under the limited partnership agreement of BPLP, unitholders may present their common units of BPLP for redemption at any time (subject to restrictions agreed upon at the time of issuance of the units that may restrict such right for a period of time, generally one year from issuance). Upon presentation of a common unit for redemption, BPLP must redeem the unit for cash equal to the then value of a share of BXP’s common stock. In lieu of cash redemption by BPLP, however, BXP may elect to acquire any common units so tendered by issuing shares of BXP common stock in exchange for the common units. If BXP so elects, its common stock will be exchanged for common units on a one-for-one basis. This one-for-one exchange ratio is subject to specified adjustments to prevent dilution. BXP generally expects that it will elect to issue its common stock in connection with each such presentation for redemption rather than having BPLP pay cash. With each such exchange or redemption, BXP’s percentage ownership in BPLP will increase. In addition, whenever BXP issues shares of its common stock other than to acquire common units of BPLP, BXP must contribute any net proceeds it receives to BPLP and BPLP must issue to BXP an equivalent number of common units of BPLP. This structure is commonly referred to as an umbrella partnership REIT, or UPREIT.
The Company believes that combining the Annual Reports on Form 10-K of BXP and BPLP into this single report provides the following benefits:
enhances investors’ understanding of BXP and BPLP 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 and readable presentation because a substantial portion of the disclosure applies to both BXP and BPLP; and
creates time and cost efficiencies through the preparation of one combined report instead of two separate reports.
The Company believes it is important to understand the few differences between BXP and BPLP in the context of how BXP and BPLP operate as a consolidated company. The financial results of BPLP are consolidated into the financial statements of BXP. BXP does not have any other significant assets, liabilities or operations, other than its investment in BPLP, nor does it have employees of its own. BPLP, not BXP, generally executes all significant business relationships other than transactions involving the securities of BXP. BPLP holds substantially all of the assets of BXP, including ownership interests in joint ventures. BPLP conducts the operations of the business and is structured as a partnership with no publicly traded equity. Except for the net proceeds from equity offerings by BXP, which are contributed to the capital of BPLP in exchange for common or preferred units of partnership in BPLP, as applicable, BPLP generates all remaining capital required by the Company’s business. These sources include working capital, net cash provided by operating activities, borrowings under the revolving credit facility, the issuance of secured and unsecured debt and equity securities and proceeds received from the disposition of certain properties and joint ventures.
Shareholders’ equity, partners’ capital and noncontrolling interests are the main areas of difference between the consolidated financial statements of BXP and BPLP. The limited partners of BPLP are accounted for as partners’ capital in BPLP’s financial statements and as noncontrolling interests in BXP’s financial statements. The noncontrolling interests in BPLP’s financial statements include the interests of unaffiliated partners in various consolidated partnerships and development joint venture partners. The noncontrolling interests in BXP’s financial statements include the same noncontrolling interests at BPLP’s level and limited partners of BPLP. The differences between shareholders’ equity and partners’ capital result from differences in the equity issued at BXP and BPLP levels.



In addition, the consolidated financial statements of BXP and BPLP differ in total real estate assets resulting from previously applied acquisition accounting by BXP for the issuance of common stock in connection with non-sponsor OP Unit redemptions. This accounting resulted in a step-up of the real estate assets at BXP. This resulted in a difference between the net real estate of BXP as compared to BPLP of approximately $341.3 million, or 2.2% at December 31, 2015 and a corresponding difference in depreciation expense, impairment losses and gains on sales of real estate upon the sale of certain properties having an allocation of the real estate step-up. The acquisition accounting was nullified on a prospective basis beginning in 2009 as a result of the Company’s adoption of a new accounting standard requiring any future redemptions to be accounted for solely as an equity transaction.
To help investors better understand the key differences between BXP and BPLP, certain information for BXP and BPLP in this report has been separated, as set forth below:
Item 6. Selected Financial Data;
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations includes information specific to each entity, where applicable;
Item 7. Liquidity and Capital Resources includes separate reconciliations of amounts to each entity’s financial statements, where applicable;
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data which includes the following specific disclosures for BXP and BPLP:
Note 2. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies;
Note 3. Real Estate;
Note 11. Noncontrolling Interest;
Note 12. Stockholders’ Equity / Partners’ Capital;
Note 15. Earnings Per Share / Per Common Unit;
Note 19. Selected Interim Financial Information (unaudited); and
Item 15. Financial Statement Schedule—Schedule III.
This report also includes separate Part II, Item 9A. Controls and Procedures sections and separate Exhibits 31 and 32 certifications for each of BXP and BPLP in order to establish that the requisite certifications have been made and that BXP and BPLP are compliant with Rule 13a-15 or Rule 15d-15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. §1350.





TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
 
 
ITEM NO.
DESCRIPTION
PAGE NO.
 
 
 
1.
1A.
1B.
2.
3.
4.
 
 
 
 
5.
6.
7.
7A.
8.
9.
9A.
9B.
 
 
 
 
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
 
 
 
 
15.



PART I

Item 1. Business

General
BXP is a fully integrated, self-administered and self-managed real estate investment trust, or “REIT,” and one of the largest owners and developers of office properties in the United States.
Our properties are concentrated in four markets—Boston, New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC. For information concerning the operations of our segments, see Note 14 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. At December 31, 2015, we owned or had interests in 168 commercial real estate properties, aggregating approximately 46.5 million net rentable square feet, including eleven properties under construction/redevelopment totaling approximately 4.6 million net rentable square feet. As of December 31, 2015 our properties consisted of:
 
158 office properties, including 127 Class A office properties (including nine properties under construction/redevelopment) and 31 Office/Technical properties;
one hotel;
five retail properties; and
four residential properties (including two under construction).
We own or control undeveloped land parcels totaling approximately 457.1 acres, which could support approximately 12.7 million square feet of additional development.
We consider Class A office properties to be centrally-located buildings that are professionally managed and maintained, attract high-quality tenants and command upper-tier rental rates, and that are modern structures or have been modernized to compete with newer buildings. We consider Office/Technical properties to be properties that support office, research and development, laboratory and other technical uses. Our definitions of Class A office and Office/Technical properties may be different than those used by other companies.
We are a full-service real estate company, with substantial in-house expertise and resources in acquisitions, development, financing, capital markets, construction management, property management, marketing, leasing, accounting, risk management, tax and legal services. BXP manages BPLP as its sole general partner. As of December 31, 2015, we had approximately 765 employees. Our thirty senior officers have an average of thirty-one years of experience in the real estate industry, including an average of nineteen years of experience with us. Our principal executive office and Boston regional office are located at The Prudential Center, 800 Boylston Street, Suite 1900, Boston, Massachusetts 02199 and our telephone number is (617) 236-3300. In addition, we have regional offices at 599 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York 10022; Four Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, California 94111 and 2200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20037.
Our internet address is http://www.bostonproperties.com. On our website, you can obtain a free copy of our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. You may also obtain BXP’s and BPLP’s reports by accessing the EDGAR database at the SEC’s website at http://www.sec.gov, or we will furnish an electronic or paper copy of these reports free of charge upon written request to: Investor Relations, Boston Properties, Inc., The Prudential Center, 800 Boylston Street, Suite 1900, Boston, Massachusetts 02199. The name “Boston Properties” and our logo (consisting of a stylized “b”) are registered service marks of BPLP.
Boston Properties Limited Partnership
BPLP is a Delaware limited partnership, and the entity through which we conduct substantially all of our business and own, either directly or through subsidiaries, substantially all of our assets. BXP is the sole general partner and, as of February 22, 2016, the owner of approximately 89.4% of the economic interests in BPLP. Economic interest was calculated as the number of common partnership units of BPLP owned by BXP as a percentage of the sum of (1) the actual aggregate number of outstanding common partnership units of BPLP, (2) the number of common units issuable upon conversion of all outstanding long term incentive plan units of BPLP, or LTIP Units, other than LTIP Units issued in the form of Multi-Year Long-Term Incentive Plan Awards (“MYLTIP Awards”) that remain subject to performance conditions, assuming all conditions have been met for the conversion of the LTIP Units, (3) the 2012 Outperformance Awards that were issued in the form of LTIP Units and earned as of February 6, 2015 (the “2012 OPP Units”) and (4) the 2013 MYLTIP Units that were issued in the form of LTIP Units and earned as of February 4, 2016 (the "2013 MYLTIPS"). An LTIP Unit is generally the economic equivalent of a share of BXP’s restricted common stock, although LTIP Units issued in the form of MYLTIP Awards are only entitled to receive one-

1


tenth (1/10th) of the regular quarterly distributions (and no special distributions) prior to being earned. BXP’s general and limited partnership interests in BPLP entitles BXP to share in cash distributions from, and in the profits and losses of, BPLP in proportion to BXP’s percentage interest and entitles BXP to vote on all matters requiring a vote of the limited partners.
Preferred units of BPLP have the rights, preferences and other privileges as are set forth in an amendment to the limited partnership agreement of BPLP. As of December 31, 2015 and February 22, 2016, BPLP had one series of Preferred Units outstanding consisting of 80,000 Series B Preferred Units. The Series B Preferred Units have a liquidation preference of $2,500.00 per share (or an aggregate of approximately $193.6 million at December 31, 2015 and February 22, 2016, after deducting the underwriting discount and transaction expenses). The Series B Preferred Units were issued by BPLP on March 27, 2013 in connection with BXP’s issuance of 80,000 shares (8,000,000 depositary shares each representing 1/100th of a share) of 5.25% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock (the “Series B Preferred Stock”). BXP contributed the net proceeds from the offering to BPLP in exchange for Series B Preferred Units having terms and preferences generally mirroring those of the Series B Preferred Stock. BXP will pay cumulative cash dividends on the Series B Preferred Stock at a rate of 5.25% per annum of the $2,500.00 liquidation preference per share. BXP may not redeem the Series B Preferred Stock prior to March 27, 2018, except in certain circumstances relating to the preservation of BXP’s REIT status. On or after March 27, 2018, BXP may redeem the Series B Preferred Stock for a cash redemption price of $2,500.00 per share, plus all accrued and unpaid dividends. The Series B Preferred Stock is not redeemable by the holders, has no maturity date and is not convertible into any other security of the Company or its affiliates.
Transactions During 2015
Ground and Air Rights Lease
On July 31, 2015, we entered into a 99-year ground and air rights lease (the “Lease”) with the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (“MDOT”) with respect to the parking garage located at 100 Clarendon Street (the “Clarendon Garage”) and the concourse level of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s Back Bay Station (the “Station”).  The Lease amends and restates the air rights lease which the Company had assumed in 2010 at the time it acquired its interests in both the Clarendon Garage and the office tower located at 200 Clarendon Street (formerly known as the John Hancock Tower). The Lease requires us to pay a total of approximately $37.0 million and provides us with options to acquire certain air rights above both the Clarendon Garage and the Station with the amount of developable square footage associated with the air rights to be determined at a later date. The previous lease had 45 years remaining in its term.  Upon execution of the Lease, we made a $5.0 million payment and the Lease requires our remaining obligation to be used to fund improvements to the Station.
Dispositions
For information explaining why BXP and BPLP may have different gains on sales of real estate, see the Explanatory Note.
On February 19, 2015, we completed the sale of a parcel of land within our Washingtonian North property located in Gaithersburg, Maryland for a gross sale price of $8.7 million. Net cash proceeds totaled approximately $8.4 million, resulting in a gain on sale of real estate totaling approximately $3.5 million. The parcel contains approximately 8.5 acres of our approximately 27 acre property.
On March 17, 2015, we completed the sale of our Residences on The Avenue property located in Washington, DC for a gross sale price of $196.0 million. Net cash proceeds totaled approximately $192.5 million, resulting in a gain on sale of real estate totaling approximately $91.4 million. We have agreed to provide net operating income support of up to $6.0 million if the property’s net operating income fails to achieve certain thresholds. As of December 31, 2015, our remaining obligation is approximately $5.2 million. This amount has been recorded as a reduction to the gain on sale. The Residences on The Avenue is comprised of 335 apartment units and approximately 50,000 net rentable square feet of retail space, subject to a ground lease that expires on February 1, 2068.
On September 18, 2015, a consolidated entity in which we have a 50% interest completed the sale of its 505 9th Street, N.W. property located in Washington, DC for approximately $318.0 million, including the assumption by the buyer of approximately $117.0 million of mortgage indebtedness (See Note 6 to the Consolidated Financial Statements).  505 9th Street, N.W. is an approximately 322,000 net rentable square foot Class A office building. Net cash proceeds totaled approximately $194.6 million, of which our share was approximately $97.3 million. We recognized a gain on sale of real estate totaling approximately $199.5 million and $199.7 million for BXP and BPLP, respectively, of which approximately $101.1 million was allocated to the outside partners and is included within Noncontrolling Interests in Property Partnerships in our Consolidated Statements of Operations (See Note 11 to the Consolidated Financial Statements).

2


On October 1, 2015, we completed the sale of an additional parcel of land within our Washingtonian North property located in Gaithersburg, Maryland for a gross sale price of approximately $13.3 million. Net cash proceeds, which included reimbursements for certain infrastructure costs, totaled approximately $13.8 million, resulting in a gain on sale of real estate totaling approximately $2.0 million. The parcel sold consisted of approximately 5.8 acres of our remaining approximately 18.3 acre property.
On December 17, 2015, we completed the sale of our Innovation Place property for a gross sale price of $207.0 million. Net cash proceeds totaled approximately $199.3 million, resulting in a gain on sale of real estate totaling approximately $79.1 and $80.1 million for BXP and BPLP, respectively. Innovation Place, located in San Jose, California, is a 26-acre site with one occupied and three vacant existing office buildings and a total of approximately 574,000 square feet (approximately 463,000 square feet of which are vacant) located at 3100-3130 Zanker Road. The remainder of the site is currently used for 1,699 surface parking spaces, but the land supports an additional 537,000 square feet of office/R&D development and two parking structures with a total of approximately 3,000 parking spaces.
Developments/Redevelopments
As of December 31, 2015, we had eleven properties under construction/redevelopment comprised of nine office properties and two residential properties, which aggregate approximately 4.6 million square feet. We estimate the total investment to complete these projects, in the aggregate, is approximately $2.6 billion of which we had already invested approximately $1.1 billion as of December 31, 2015. For a detailed list of the properties under construction/redevelopment see the following “Liquidity and Capital Resources” within “Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”
On May 1, 2015, we commenced the redevelopment of Reservoir Place North, a Class A office project with approximately 73,000 net rentable square feet located in Waltham, Massachusetts.
On July 23, 2015, we commenced construction of our Cambridge Residential project, a residential project aggregating approximately 164,000 square feet comprised of 274 apartment units and approximately 9,000 square feet of retail space located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. On August 13, 2015, we acquired an approximately 8,700 square foot parcel of land necessary for the development for a purchase price of approximately $2.0 million.
On July 23, 2015, we commenced construction of our Reston Signature Site project, a residential project aggregating approximately 514,000 square feet comprised of 508 apartment units and approximately 24,000 square feet of retail space located in Reston Town Center in Reston, Virginia.
On August 14, 2015, we partially placed in-service 601 Massachusetts Avenue, a Class A office project with approximately 478,000 net rentable square feet located in Washington, DC.
On September 10, 2015, we partially placed in-service The Point (formerly 99 Third Avenue Retail), a retail project with approximately 16,000 net rentable square feet of retail space located in Waltham, Massachusetts. This project was fully placed in-service on November 1, 2015.
On November 1, 2015, we completed and fully placed in-service 535 Mission Street, a Class A office project with approximately 307,000 net rentable square feet located in San Francisco, California.
On December 2, 2015, we completed and fully placed in-service 690 Folsom Street, an office and retail project with approximately 26,000 net rentable square feet located in San Francisco, California.
Secured Debt Transactions
On September 18, 2015, in connection with the sale of 505 9th Street, N.W. located in Washington, DC by a consolidated entity in which we have a 50% interest, the consolidated entity assigned to the buyer the mortgage loan collateralized by the property totaling approximately $117.0 million. The assigned mortgage loan bears interest at a fixed rate of 5.73% per annum and matures on November 1, 2017 (See Note 3 to the Consolidated Financial Statements).
On October 1, 2015, we used available cash to repay the mortgage loan collateralized by our Kingstowne Two and Kingstowne Retail properties located in Alexandria, Virginia totaling approximately $29.8 million. The mortgage loan bore interest at a fixed rate of 5.99% per annum and was scheduled to mature on January 1, 2016. There was no prepayment penalty.
On December 15, 2015, we legally defeased the mortgage loan collateralized by our 100 & 200 Clarendon Street (formerly known as the John Hancock Tower and Garage) properties located in Boston, Massachusetts. The mortgage loan had an outstanding principal balance of $640.5 million, bore interest at a fixed rate of 5.68% per annum and was scheduled to

3


mature on January 6, 2017. The cash outlay required for the defeasance in the net amount of approximately $667.3 million was based on the purchase price of U.S. government securities that will generate sufficient cash flow to fund continued interest payments on the loan from the effective date of the defeasance through, and the repayment of the loan on, October 6, 2016, which is the date on which we could repay the loan at par. In connection with the defeasance, the mortgage and other liens on the property were extinguished and all existing collateral, including various guarantees, were released. As a result of the defeasance, we recognized a loss from early extinguishment of debt of approximately $22.0 million, consisting of approximately $26.8 million, which is the difference between the purchase price for the U.S. government securities acquired for the defeasance and the outstanding principal balance of the mortgage loan, and approximately $1.4 million of unamortized deferred financing costs, offset by approximately $4.8 million from the acceleration of the remaining balance of the historical fair value debt adjustment and approximately $1.4 million of accrued interest expense through the effective date of the defeasance.
Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities
On February 19, 2015, BPLP commenced a planned interest rate hedging program. To date, BPLP has entered into forward-starting interest rate swap contracts which fix the 10-year swap rate at a weighted-average rate of approximately 2.423% per annum on notional amounts aggregating $550.0 million. The interest rate swap contracts were entered into in advance of a financing by BPLP with a target commencement date in September 2016 and maturity in September 2026. BPLP entered into the interest rate swap contracts designated and qualifying as cash flow hedges to reduce its exposure to the variability in future cash flows attributable to changes in the 10-year swap rate in contemplation of obtaining 10-year fixed-rate financing in September 2016.
In addition, our 767 Fifth Partners LLC consolidated entity (the entity in which we have a 60% interest and that owns 767 Fifth Avenue (the General Motors Building) in New York City) entered into forward-starting interest rate swap contracts, including two contracts entered into subsequent to December 31, 2015, which fix the 10-year swap rate at a weighted-average rate of approximately 2.619% per annum on notional amounts aggregating $450.0 million. These interest rate swap contracts were entered into in advance of a financing with a target commencement date in June 2017 and maturity in June 2027. Our 767 Fifth Partners LLC consolidated entity entered into the interest rate swap contracts designated and qualifying as cash flow hedges to reduce its exposure to the variability in future cash flows attributable to changes in the 10-year swap rate in contemplation of obtaining 10-year fixed-rate financing in June 2017 (See Notes 7 and 20 to the Consolidated Financial Statements).
Equity Transactions
On June 25, 2015, BPLP redeemed the remaining 12,667 Series Four Preferred Units for cash totaling approximately $0.6 million.
During the year ended December 31, 2015, BXP acquired an aggregate of 424,236 common units of limited partnership interest, including 65,192 common units issued upon the conversion of LTIP Units and 2012 OPP awards presented by the holders for redemption, in exchange for an equal number of shares of common stock. During the year ended December 31, 2015, BXP issued 11,447 shares of common stock as a result of stock options being exercised.
Special Dividend
On December 17, 2015, BXP’s Board of Directors declared a special cash dividend of $1.25 per common share, in addition to its regular quarterly dividend of $0.65 per common share, which were paid on January 28, 2016 to shareholders of record as of the close of business on December 31, 2015. The decision to declare a special dividend was primarily a result of the taxable gains associated with the sale of approximately $584 million of assets in 2015. BXP’s Board of Directors did not make any change to its policy with respect to regular quarterly dividends. The payment of the regular quarterly dividend of $0.65 per share and the special dividend of $1.25 per share resulted in a total dividend of $1.90 per share on January 28, 2016. Common and LTIP unitholders of limited partnership interest in BPLP, as of the close of business on December 31, 2015, received the same total distribution per unit, on January 28, 2016.
Investments in Unconsolidated Joint Ventures
On May 8, 2015, we entered into a joint venture with an unrelated third party to redevelop an existing building into a Class A office building totaling approximately 115,000 net rentable square feet at 1265 Main Street in Waltham, Massachusetts.  The joint venture partner contributed real estate and improvements, with an aggregate fair value of approximately $9.4 million, for its initial 50% interest in the joint venture. For our initial 50% interest, we will contribute cash totaling approximately $9.4 million as the joint venture incurs costs. The joint venture has entered into a fifteen-year lease with a tenant to occupy 100% of the building.

4


On June 26, 2015, we entered into a joint venture with an unrelated third party to develop Dock72, an office building totaling approximately 670,000 net rentable square feet located at the Brooklyn Navy Yard in Brooklyn, New York. Each partner contributed cash totaling approximately $9.1 million for their initial 50% interest in the joint venture. The joint venture entered into a 96-year ground lease, comprised of an initial term of 46 years, which may be extended by the joint venture to 2111, subject to certain conditions. The joint venture also entered into a 20-year lease with a tenant to occupy approximately 222,000 net rentable square feet at the building. In addition, the joint venture entered into an option agreement pursuant to which it may lease an additional land parcel at the site, which could support between 600,000 and 1,000,000 net rentable square feet of development. In connection with the execution of the option agreement, the joint venture paid a non-refundable option payment of $1.0 million.
On September 22, 2015, a joint venture in which we have a 50% interest completed and fully placed in-service Annapolis Junction Building Seven, a Class A office project with approximately 127,000 net rentable square feet located in Annapolis, Maryland.
On September 30, 2015, a joint venture in which we have a 50% interest extended the loan collateralized by its Annapolis Junction Building Six property. At the time of the extension, the outstanding balance of the construction loan totaled approximately $13.4 million and was scheduled to mature on November 17, 2015. The extended loan has a total commitment amount of $15.9 million, bears interest at a variable rate equal to LIBOR plus 2.25% per annum and matures on November 17, 2016. Annapolis Junction Building Six is a Class A office property with approximately 119,000 net rentable square feet located in Annapolis, Maryland.
On October 22, 2015, a joint venture in which we have a 50% interest commenced construction of the Hub on Causeway at North Station containing approximately 385,000 net rentable square feet of retail and office space located in Boston, Massachusetts.
On December 22, 2015, a joint venture in which we have a 50% interest completed and fully placed in-service Annapolis Junction Building Eight, a Class A office project with approximately 126,000 net rentable square feet located in Annapolis, Maryland.
Stock Option and Incentive Plan
On January 21, 2015, BXP’s Compensation Committee approved a new equity-based, multi-year, long-term incentive program (the “2015 MYLTIP”) as a performance-based component of our overall compensation program. Under the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) 718 “Compensation - Stock Compensation,” the 2015 MYLTIP has an aggregate grant fair value of approximately $15.7 million, which amount will generally be amortized into earnings over the four-year plan period under the graded vesting method (See Note 17 to the Consolidated Financial Statements).
On February 6, 2015, the measurement period for our 2012 OPP Unit awards ended and BXP’s total stockholder return (“TSR”) performance was sufficient for employees to earn and therefore become eligible to vest in a portion of the 2012 OPP Unit awards. The final outperformance pool was determined to be approximately $32.1 million, or approximately 80% of the total maximum outperformance pool of $40.0 million. As a result, 174,549 2012 OPP Units were automatically forfeited.
Business and Growth Strategies
Business Strategies
Our primary business objective is to maximize return on investment so as to provide our investors with the greatest possible total return in all points of the economic cycle. Our strategies to achieve this objective are:
to target a few carefully selected geographic markets, including Boston, New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC, and to be one of the leading, if not the leading, owners, developers and managers in each of those markets with a full-service office in each market providing property management, leasing, development, construction and legal expertise. We select markets and submarkets with a diverse economic base and a deep pool of prospective tenants in various industries and where tenants have demonstrated a preference for high-quality office buildings and other facilities. We have explored and may continue to explore for future investment select domestic and international markets that exhibit these same traits;
to emphasize markets and submarkets within those markets where the lack of available sites and the difficulty of receiving the necessary approvals for development and the necessary financing constitute high barriers to the creation

5


of new supply, and where skill, financial strength and diligence are required to successfully develop, finance and manage high-quality office, research and development space, as well as selected retail and residential space;
to take on complex, technically challenging development projects, leveraging the skills of our management team to successfully develop, acquire or reposition properties that other organizations may not have the capacity or resources to pursue;
to own and develop high-quality real estate designed to meet the demands of today’s tenants who require sophisticated telecommunications and related infrastructure, support services, sustainable features and amenities, and to manage those facilities so as to become the landlord of choice for both existing and prospective clients;
to opportunistically acquire assets which increase our penetration in the markets in which we have chosen to concentrate, as well as potential new markets, which exhibit an opportunity to improve or preserve returns through repositioning (through a combination of capital improvements and shift in marketing strategy), changes in management focus and leasing;
to explore joint venture opportunities with existing property owners located in desirable locations, who seek to benefit from the depth of development and management expertise we are able to provide and our access to capital, and/or to explore joint venture opportunities with strategic institutional partners, leveraging our skills as owners, operators and developers of Class A office space and mixed-use complexes;
to pursue on a selective basis the sale of properties or interests therein, including core properties, to either (1) take advantage of the demand for our premier properties and realize the value we have created or (2) pare from our portfolio properties that we believe have slower future growth potential;
to seek third-party development contracts, which can be a significant source of revenue and enable us to retain and utilize our existing development and construction management staff, especially when our internal development is less active or when new development is less-warranted due to market conditions; and
to enhance our capital structure through our access to a variety of sources of capital and proactively manage our debt expirations. In the current economic climate with historically low interest rates we have and will continue to attempt to lower the cost of our debt capital and seek opportunities to lock in such low rates through early debt repayment, refinancings and interest rate hedges.
Growth Strategies
External Growth Strategies
We believe that our development experience and our organizational depth position us to continue to selectively develop a range of property types, including high-rise urban developments, mixed-use developments (including office, residential and retail), low-rise suburban office properties and research and laboratory space, within budget and on schedule. We believe we are also well positioned to achieve external growth through acquisitions. Other factors that contribute to our competitive position include:
 our control of sites (including sites under contract or option to acquire) in our markets that could support in excess of 12.7 million additional square feet of new office, retail and residential development;
our reputation gained through 46 years of successful operations and the stability and strength of our existing portfolio of properties;
our relationships with leading national corporations, universities and public institutions, including government agencies, seeking new facilities and development services;
our relationships with nationally recognized financial institutions that provide capital to the real estate industry;
our track record and reputation for executing acquisitions efficiently provide comfort to domestic and foreign institutions, private investors and corporations who seek to sell commercial real estate in our market areas;
our ability to act quickly on due diligence and financing;
our relationships with institutional buyers and sellers of high-quality real estate assets; and
our ability to procure entitlements from multiple municipalities to develop sites and attract land owners to sell or partner with us.

6


Opportunities to execute our external growth strategy fall into three categories:
Development in selected submarkets. We believe the additional development of well-positioned office buildings, residential buildings and mixed-use complexes could be justified in our markets. We believe in acquiring land after taking into consideration timing factors relating to economic cycles and in response to market conditions that allow for its development at the appropriate time. While we purposely concentrate in markets with high barriers-to-entry, we have demonstrated throughout our 46-year history, an ability to make carefully timed land acquisitions in submarkets where we can become one of the market leaders in establishing rent and other business terms. We believe that there are opportunities at key locations in our existing and other markets for a well-capitalized developer to acquire land with development potential.
In the past, we have been particularly successful at acquiring sites or options to purchase sites that need governmental approvals for development. Because of our development expertise, knowledge of the governmental approval process and reputation for quality development with local government regulatory bodies, we generally have been able to secure the permits necessary to allow development and to profit from the resulting increase in land value. We seek complex projects where we can add value through the efforts of our experienced and skilled management team leading to attractive returns on investment.
Our strong regional relationships and recognized development expertise have enabled us to capitalize on unique build-to-suit opportunities. We intend to seek and expect to continue to be presented with such opportunities in the near term allowing us to earn relatively significant returns on these development opportunities through multiple business cycles.
Acquisition of assets and portfolios of assets from institutions or individuals. We believe that due to our size, management strength and reputation, we are well positioned to acquire portfolios of assets or individual properties from institutions or individuals if valuations meet our criteria. In addition, we believe that our market knowledge and our liquidity and access to capital may provide us with a competitive advantage when pursuing acquisitions. There may be enhanced opportunities to purchase assets with near-term financing maturities or possibly provide debt on assets at enhanced yields. Opportunities to acquire properties may also come through the purchase of first mortgage or mezzanine debt. We may also acquire properties for cash, but we are also particularly well-positioned to appeal to sellers wishing to contribute on a tax-deferred basis their ownership of property for equity in a diversified real estate operating company that offers liquidity through access to the public equity markets in addition to a quarterly distribution. Our ability to offer common and preferred units of limited partnership in BPLP to sellers who would otherwise recognize a taxable gain upon a sale of assets or BXP’s common stock may facilitate this type of transaction on a tax-efficient basis. In addition, we may consider mergers with and acquisitions of compatible real estate firms.
Acquisition of underperforming assets and portfolios of assets. We believe that because of our in-depth market knowledge and development experience in each of our markets, our national reputation with brokers, financial institutions and others involved in the real estate market and our access to competitively-priced capital, we are well-positioned to identify and acquire existing, underperforming properties for competitive prices and to add significant additional value to such properties through our effective marketing strategies, repositioning/redevelopment expertise and a responsive property management program. We have developed this strategy and program for our existing portfolio, where we provide high-quality property management services using our own employees in order to encourage tenants to renew, expand and relocate in our properties. We are able to achieve speed and transaction cost efficiency in replacing departing tenants through the use of in-house and third-party vendors’ services for marketing, including calls and presentations to prospective tenants, print advertisements, lease negotiation and construction of tenant improvements. Our tenants benefit from cost efficiencies produced by our experienced work force, which is attentive to preventive maintenance and energy management.
Internal Growth Strategies
We believe that opportunities will exist to increase cash flow from our existing properties because they are of high quality and in desirable locations within markets where, in general, the creation of new supply is limited by the lack of available sites and the difficulty of obtaining the necessary approvals for development on vacant land and financing. Our strategy for maximizing the benefits from these opportunities is three-fold: (1) to provide high-quality property management services using our employees in order to encourage tenants to renew, expand and relocate in our properties, (2) to achieve speed and transaction cost efficiency in replacing departing tenants through the use of in-house services for marketing, lease negotiation and construction of tenant improvements and (3) to work with new or existing tenants with space expansion or contraction needs maximizing the cash flow from our assets. We expect to continue our internal growth as a result of our ability to: 

7


Cultivate existing submarkets and long-term relationships with credit tenants. In choosing locations for our properties, we have paid particular attention to transportation and commuting patterns, physical environment, adjacency to established business centers, proximity to sources of business growth and other local factors.
The average lease term of our in-place leases, including unconsolidated joint ventures, was approximately 6.9 years at December 31, 2015 and we continue to cultivate long-term leasing relationships with a diverse base of high-quality, financially stable tenants. Based on leases in place at December 31, 2015, leases with respect to approximately 7.1% of the total square feet in our portfolio, including unconsolidated joint ventures, will expire in calendar year 2016. 
Directly manage our office properties to maximize the potential for tenant retention. We provide property management services ourselves, rather than contracting for this service, to maintain awareness of and responsiveness to tenant needs. We and our properties also benefit from cost efficiencies produced by an experienced work force attentive to preventive maintenance and energy management and from our continuing programs to assure that our property management personnel at all levels remain aware of their important role in tenant relations.
Replace tenants quickly at best available market terms and lowest possible transaction costs. We believe that we are well-positioned to attract new tenants and achieve relatively high rental rates as a result of our well-located, well-designed and well-maintained properties, our reputation for high-quality building services and responsiveness to tenants, and our ability to offer expansion and relocation alternatives within our submarkets.
Extend terms of existing leases to existing tenants prior to expiration. We have also successfully structured early tenant renewals, which have reduced the cost associated with lease downtime while securing the tenancy of our highest quality credit-worthy tenants on a long-term basis and enhancing relationships.
Policies with Respect to Certain Activities
The discussion below sets forth certain additional information regarding our investment, financing and other policies. These policies have been determined by BXP’s Board of Directors and, in general, may be amended or revised from time to time by the Board of Directors.
Investment Policies
Investments in Real Estate or Interests in Real Estate
Our investment objectives are to provide quarterly cash dividends/distributions to our securityholders and to achieve long-term capital appreciation through increases in our value. We have not established a specific policy regarding the relative priority of these investment objectives.
We expect to continue to pursue our investment objectives primarily through the ownership of our current properties, development projects and other acquired properties. We currently intend to continue to invest primarily in developments of properties and acquisitions of existing improved properties or properties in need of redevelopment, and acquisitions of land that we believe have development potential, primarily in our existing markets of Boston, New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC. We have explored and may continue to explore for future investment select domestic and international markets that exhibit these same traits. Future investment or development activities will not be limited to a specified percentage of our assets. We intend to engage in such future investment or development activities in a manner that is consistent with the maintenance of BXP’s status as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. In addition, we may purchase or lease income-producing commercial and other types of properties for long-term investment, expand and improve the real estate presently owned or other properties purchased, or sell such real estate properties, in whole or in part, when circumstances warrant. We do not have a policy that restricts the amount or percentage of assets that will be invested in any specific property, however, our investments may be restricted by our debt covenants.
We may also continue to participate with third parties in property ownership, through joint ventures or other types of co-ownership. These investments may permit us to own interests in larger assets without unduly restricting diversification and, therefore, add flexibility in structuring our portfolio.
Equity investments may be subject to existing mortgage financing and other indebtedness or such financing or indebtedness as may be incurred in connection with acquiring or refinancing these investments. Debt service on such financing or indebtedness will have a priority over any distributions with respect to BXP’s common stock. Investments are also subject to our policy not to be treated as an investment company under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”). 

8


Investments in Real Estate Mortgages
While our current portfolio consists primarily of, and our business objectives emphasize, equity investments in commercial real estate, we may, at the discretion of the Board of Directors of BXP, invest in mortgages and other types of real estate interests consistent with BXP’s qualification as a REIT. Investments in real estate mortgages run the risk that one or more borrowers may default under such mortgages and that the collateral securing such mortgages may not be sufficient to enable us to recoup our full investment. We may invest in participating, convertible or traditional mortgages if we conclude that we may benefit from the cash flow, or any appreciation in value of the property or as an entrance to the fee ownership.
Securities of or Interests in Entities Primarily Engaged in Real Estate Activities
Subject to the percentage of ownership limitations and gross income and asset tests necessary for BXP’s REIT qualification, we also may invest in securities of other REITs, other entities engaged in real estate activities or securities of other issuers, including for the purpose of exercising control over such entities.
Dispositions
Our decision to dispose or partially dispose of properties is based upon the periodic review of our portfolio and the determination by the Board of Directors of BXP that such action would be in our best interests. Any decision to dispose of a property will be authorized by the Board of Directors of BXP or a committee thereof. Some holders of limited partnership interests in BPLP, including Mortimer B. Zuckerman, could incur adverse tax consequences upon the sale of certain of our properties that differ from the tax consequences to BXP. Consequently, holders of limited partnership interests in BPLP may have different objectives regarding the appropriate pricing and timing of any such sale. Such different tax treatment derives in most cases from the fact that we acquired these properties in exchange for partnership interests in contribution transactions structured to allow the prior owners to defer taxable gain. Generally this deferral continues so long as we do not dispose of the properties in a taxable transaction. Unless a sale by us of these properties is structured as a like-kind exchange under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code or in a manner that otherwise allows deferral to continue, recognition of the deferred tax gain allocable to these prior owners is generally triggered by a sale. One of our assets is subject to a tax protection agreement, which may limit our ability to dispose of it or require us to pay damages to the prior owner in the event of a taxable sale.
Financing Policies 
The agreement of limited partnership of BPLP and BXP’s certificate of incorporation and bylaws do not limit the amount or percentage of indebtedness that we may incur. Further, we do not have a policy limiting the amount of indebtedness that we may incur, nor have we established any limit on the number or amount of mortgages that may be placed on any single property or on our portfolio as a whole. However, our mortgages, credit facilities and unsecured debt securities contain customary restrictions, requirements and other limitations on our ability to incur indebtedness.
The Board of Directors of BXP will consider a number of factors when evaluating our level of indebtedness and when making decisions regarding the incurrence of indebtedness, including the purchase price of properties to be acquired with debt financing, the estimated market value of our properties upon refinancing, the entering into agreements such as interest rate swaps, caps, floors and other interest rate hedging contracts and the ability of particular properties and us as a whole to generate cash flow to cover expected debt service. 
Policies with Respect to Other Activities
As the sole general partner of BPLP, BXP has the authority to issue additional common and preferred units of limited partnership interest of BPLP. BXP has issued, and may in the future issue, common or preferred units of limited partnership interest to persons who contribute their direct or indirect interests in properties to us in exchange for such common or preferred units. We have not engaged in trading, underwriting or agency distribution or sale of securities of issuers other than BPLP and we do not intend to do so. At all times, we intend to make investments in such a manner as to enable BXP to maintain its qualification as a REIT, unless, due to changes in circumstances or to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (or the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder), the Board of Directors of BXP determines that it is no longer in the best interest of BXP to qualify as a REIT. We may make loans to third parties, including, without limitation, to joint ventures in which we participate or in connection with the disposition of a property. We intend to make investments in such a way that we will not be treated as an investment company under the 1940 Act. Our policies with respect to these and other activities may be reviewed and modified or amended from time to time by the Board of Directors of BXP. 

9


Sustainability
As one of the largest owners and developers of office properties in the United States, we actively work to promote our growth and operations in a sustainable and responsible manner across our four regions. Our sustainability strategy is broadly focused on the economic, social and environmental aspects of our activities, which include the design and construction of our new developments and the operation of our existing buildings. We are focused on creating healthy workspaces and high performance properties while simultaneously mitigating operational costs and the potential external impacts of energy, water, waste and greenhouse gas emissions. As a company with a core strategy of long-term ownership, we are committed to charitable giving, volunteerism and public realm investments that make a positive impact on the communities in which we conduct business. Through these efforts, we demonstrate that operating and developing commercial real estate can be conducted with a conscious regard for the environment while mutually benefiting our tenants, investors, employees and the communities in which we operate.
During 2015, the National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts ("NAREIT") selected BXP as a joint winner of NAREIT’s Office Leader in the Light Award - the highest achievement for all office REITs and real estate companies. BXP was selected by a panel of judges that evaluated disclosures summarizing implemented energy and water conservation measures, renewable energy procurement, waste diversion and the results of the Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (“GRESB”) assessment. In the GRESB assessment, BXP ranked 24th out of 688 global companies, among the top 4% of all participants. 2015 was the fourth straight year that BXP has ranked in the top quartile of GRESB assessment participants, earning another “Green Star” recognition.
Our sustainability strategy, key performance indicators and achievements are disclosed on our website at http://www.bostonproperties.com under the heading “Sustainability”.
Competition
We compete in the leasing of office, retail and residential space with a considerable number of other real estate companies, some of which may have greater marketing and financial resources than are available to us. In addition, our hotel property competes for guests with other hotels, some of which may have greater marketing and financial resources than are available to us and to the manager of our one hotel, Marriott International, Inc. 
Principal factors of competition in our primary business of owning, acquiring and developing office properties are the quality of properties, leasing terms (including rent and other charges and allowances for tenant improvements), attractiveness and convenience of location, the quality and breadth of tenant services provided, and reputation as an owner and operator of quality office properties in the relevant market. Additionally, our ability to compete depends upon, among other factors, trends of the national and local economies, investment alternatives, financial condition and operating results of current and prospective tenants, availability and cost of capital, construction and renovation costs, taxes, utilities, governmental regulations, legislation and population trends. 
In addition, we currently have four residential properties (including two under construction) and may in the future decide to acquire or develop additional residential properties. As an owner and operator of apartments, we will also face competition for prospective residents from other operators whose properties may be perceived to offer a better location or better amenities or whose rent may be perceived as a better value given the quality, location and amenities that the resident seeks. We will also compete against condominiums and single-family homes that are for sale or rent. Because the scale of our residential portfolio is relatively small, we expect to continue to retain third parties to manage our residential properties.
Our Hotel Property
We operate our hotel property through a taxable REIT subsidiary. The taxable REIT subsidiary, a wholly-owned subsidiary of BPLP, is the lessee pursuant to a lease for the hotel property. As lessor, BPLP is entitled to a percentage of gross receipts from the hotel property. The hotel lease allows economic benefits of ownership to flow to us. Marriott International, Inc. continues to manage the hotel property under the Marriott name and under terms of the existing management agreements. Marriott has been engaged under a separate long-term incentive management agreement to operate and manage the hotel on behalf of the taxable REIT subsidiary. In connection with these arrangements, Marriott has agreed to operate and maintain our hotel in accordance with its system-wide standard for comparable hotels and to provide the hotel with the benefits of its central reservation system and other chain-wide programs and services. Under a management agreement for the hotel, Marriott acts as the taxable REIT subsidiary’s agent to supervise, direct and control the management and operation of the hotel and receives as compensation base management fees that are calculated as a percentage of the hotel’s gross revenues, and supplemental incentive fees if the hotel exceeds negotiated profitability breakpoints. In addition, the taxable REIT subsidiary compensates Marriott, on the basis of a formula applied to the hotel’s gross revenues, for certain system-wide services provided by Marriott,

10


including central reservations, marketing and training. During 2015, 2014 and 2013, Marriott received an aggregate of approximately $2.9 million, $1.0 million and $1.2 million, respectively, from our taxable REIT subsidiary.
Seasonality
Our hotel property traditionally has experienced significant seasonality in its operating income. Below is the net operating income and the percentage of net operating income by quarter for the year ended December 31, 2015.
 
First Quarter
 
Second Quarter
 
Third Quarter
 
Fourth Quarter
$1.5 million
 
$4.9 million
 
$4.5 million
 
$3.1 million
11%
 
35%
 
32%
 
22%
Corporate Governance
BXP is currently governed by an eleven member Board of Directors. The current members of the Board of Directors of BXP are Mortimer B. Zuckerman, Carol B. Einiger, Dr. Jacob A. Frenkel, Joel I. Klein, Douglas T. Linde, Matthew J. Lustig, Alan J. Patricof, Ivan G. Seidenberg, Owen D. Thomas, Martin Turchin and David A. Twardock. All directors of BXP stand for election for one-year terms expiring at the next succeeding annual meeting of stockholders.
The Board of Directors of BXP has Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees. The membership of each of these committees is described below.
Independent Director
  
Audit
 
Compensation
 
Nominating
and
Corporate
Governance
Carol B. Einiger
  
 
 
 
 
 
X
 
 
 
 
 
Dr. Jacob A. Frenkel
  
 
 
  
 
 
X
 
 
 
X
*
Joel I. Klein
  
 
X
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
X
 
Matthew J. Lustig
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Alan J. Patricof
 
 
X
*
 
 
 
 
 
 
X
 
Ivan G. Seidenberg **
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Martin Turchin
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
David A. Twardock
  
 
X
 
 
 
X
 
 
 
  
 
X=Committee member, *=Chair, **=Lead Independent Director
The Board of Directors has adopted charters for each of its Audit, Compensation and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees. A copy of each of these charters is available on our website at http://www.bostonproperties.com under the heading “Corporate Governance” and subheading “Committees and Charters.”
The Board of Directors has adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines, a copy of which is available on our website at http://www.bostonproperties.com under the heading “Corporate Governance” and subheading “Governance Guidelines.”
The Board of Directors has adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, which governs business decisions made and actions taken by BXP’s directors, officers and employees. A copy of this code is available on our website at http://www.bostonproperties.com under the heading “Corporate Governance” and subheading “Code of Conduct and Ethics.” BXP intends to disclose on this website any amendment to, or waiver of, any provisions of this Code applicable to the directors and executive officers of BXP that would otherwise be required to be disclosed under the rules of the SEC or the New York Stock Exchange.
The Board of Directors has established an ethics reporting system that employees may use to anonymously report possible violations of the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, including concerns regarding questionable accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters, by telephone or over the internet.

11


The Board of Directors has adopted a Policy on Company Political Spending, a copy of which is available on our website at http://www.bostonproperties.com under the heading “Corporate Governance” and subheading “Policy on Political Spending.”

Recent Tax Legislation Affecting BXP and BPLP
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015
On November 2, 2015, Congress enacted the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. Among other things, this Act changes the rules applicable to federal income tax audits of partnerships (such as BPLP) and the collection of any tax resulting from any such audits or other tax proceedings. Under the new rules, the partnership itself must pay any “imputed underpayments,” consisting of delinquent taxes, interest, and penalties deemed to arise out of an audit of the partnership, unless certain alternative methods are available and the partnership elects to utilize them.
The new rule generally does not apply to audits of taxable years beginning before January 1, 2018, and many of the details, including the means by which a partnership can avail itself of the alternative methods and the manner in which the alternative methods may apply to REITs, will be determined through yet-to-be-proposed Treasury Regulations. Therefore, it is not clear at this time what effect this new legislation will have on us. However, it is possible that in the future, BXP or BPLP, or both, could be subject to, or otherwise bear the economic burden of, federal income tax, interest, and penalties resulting from a federal income tax audit as a result of the changes enacted by the Act.
Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015
On December 18, 2015, Congress enacted the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015. This legislation modifies a number of rules pertaining to qualification as a REIT and the taxation of REITs and their shareholders, including, among others, the following changes to certain rules described in the disclosure set forth in our prospectus:
For tax years beginning after December 31, 2017, not more than 20% of our total assets may be represented by securities of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries. At this time, the securities we own in our taxable REIT subsidiaries do not, in the aggregate, exceed 20% of the total value of our assets.
A 100% excise tax is imposed on “redetermined TRS service income,” which is income of a taxable REIT subsidiary attributable to services provided to, or on behalf of its associated REIT and which would otherwise be increased on distribution, apportionment, or allocation under Section 482 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (i.e., as a result of a determination that the income was not arm’s length).

12


Item 1A. Risk Factors.
Set forth below are the risks that we believe are material to our investors. We refer to the equity and debt securities of both BXP and BPLP as our “securities,” and the investors who own shares or units, or both, as our “securityholders.” This section contains forward-looking statements. You should refer to the explanation of the qualifications and limitations on forward-looking statements beginning on page 43.
Our performance and value are subject to risks associated with our real estate assets and with the real estate industry.
Our economic performance and the value of our real estate assets, and consequently the value of our securities, are subject to the risk that if our properties do not generate revenues sufficient to meet our operating expenses, including debt service and capital expenditures, our cash flow and ability to pay distributions to our securityholders will be adversely affected. The following factors, among others, may adversely affect the income generated by our properties:
downturns in the national, regional and local economic conditions (particularly increases in unemployment);
competition from other office, hotel, retail and residential buildings;
local real estate market conditions, such as oversupply or reduction in demand for office, hotel, retail or residential space;
changes in interest rates and availability of financing;
vacancies, changes in market rental rates and the need to periodically repair, renovate and re-let space;
changes in space utilization by our tenants due to technology, economic conditions and business culture;
increased operating costs, including insurance expense, utilities, real estate taxes, state and local taxes and heightened security costs;
civil disturbances, earthquakes and other natural disasters or terrorist acts or acts of war which may result in uninsured or underinsured losses or decrease the desirability to our tenants in impacted locations;
significant expenditures associated with each investment, such as debt service payments, real estate taxes, insurance and maintenance costs which are generally not reduced when circumstances cause a reduction in revenues from a property;
declines in the financial condition of our tenants and our ability to collect rents from our tenants; and
decreases in the underlying value of our real estate.
We are dependent upon the economic climates of our markets—Boston, New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC.
All of our revenue is derived from properties located in four markets: Boston, New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC. A downturn in the economies of these markets, or the impact that a downturn in the overall national economy may have upon these economies, could result in reduced demand for office space and/or a reduction in rents. Because our portfolio consists primarily of office buildings (as compared to a more diversified real estate portfolio), a decrease in demand for office space in turn could adversely affect our results of operations. Additionally, there are submarkets within our markets that are dependent upon a limited number of industries. For example, in our Washington, DC market, we focus on leasing office properties to governmental agencies and contractors, as well as legal firms. A reduction in spending by the federal government could result in reduced demand for office space and adversely affect our results of operations. In addition, in our New York market, we have historically leased properties to financial, legal and other professional firms. A significant downturn in one or more of these sectors could adversely affect our results of operations. 
In addition, a significant economic downturn over a period of time could result in an event or change in circumstances that results in an impairment in the value of our properties or our investments in unconsolidated joint ventures. An impairment loss is recognized if the carrying amount of the asset (1) is not recoverable over its expected holding period and (2) exceeds its fair value. There can be no assurance that we will not take charges in the future related to the impairment of our assets or investments. Any future impairment could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the charge is taken.

13


Our investment in property development may be more costly than anticipated.
We intend to continue to develop and substantially renovate office, retail and residential properties. Our current and future development and construction activities may be exposed to the following risks: 
we may be unable to proceed with the development of properties because we cannot obtain financing on favorable terms or at all;
we may incur construction costs for a development project that exceed our original estimates due to increases in interest rates and increased materials, labor, leasing or other costs, which could make completion of the project less profitable because market rents may not increase sufficiently to compensate for the increase in construction costs;
we may be unable to obtain, or face delays in obtaining, required zoning, land-use, building, occupancy, and other governmental permits and authorizations, which could result in increased costs and could require us to abandon our activities entirely with respect to a project;
we may abandon development opportunities after we begin to explore them and as a result we may lose deposits or fail to recover expenses already incurred;
we may expend funds on and devote management’s time to projects which we do not complete;
we may be unable to complete construction and/or leasing of a property on schedule or at all; and
we may suspend development projects after construction has begun due to changes in economic conditions or other factors, and this may result in the write-off of costs, payment of additional costs or increases in overall costs when the development project is restarted.
Investment returns from our developed properties may be less than anticipated. 
Our developed properties may be exposed to the following risks:
we may lease developed properties at rental rates that are less than the rates projected at the time we decide to undertake the development;
operating expenses may be greater than projected at the time of development, resulting in our investment being less profitable than we expected; and
occupancy rates and rents at newly developed properties may fluctuate depending on a number of factors, including market and economic conditions, and may result in our investments being less profitable than we expected or not profitable at all.
We face risks associated with the development of mixed-use commercial properties.
We operate, are currently developing, and may in the future develop, properties either alone or through joint ventures with other persons that are known as “mixed-use” developments. This means that in addition to the development of office space, the project may also include space for residential, retail, hotel or other commercial purposes. We have less experience in developing and managing non-office and non-retail real estate than we do with office real estate. As a result, if a development project includes a non-office or non-retail use, we may seek to develop that component ourselves, sell the rights to that component to a third-party developer with experience in that use or we may seek to partner with such a developer. If we do not sell the rights or partner with such a developer, or if we choose to develop the other component ourselves, we would be exposed not only to those risks typically associated with the development of commercial real estate generally, but also to specific risks associated with the development and ownership of non-office and non-retail real estate. In addition, even if we sell the rights to develop the other component or elect to participate in the development through a joint venture, we may be exposed to the risks associated with the failure of the other party to complete the development as expected. These include the risk that the other party would default on its obligations necessitating that we complete the other component ourselves (including providing any necessary financing). In the case of residential properties, these risks include competition for prospective residents from other operators whose properties may be perceived to offer a better location or better amenities or whose rent may be perceived as a better value given the quality, location and amenities that the resident seeks. We will also compete against condominiums and single-family homes that are for sale or rent. Because we have less experience with residential properties than with office and retail properties, we expect to retain third parties to manage our residential properties. If we decide to not sell or participate in a joint venture and instead hire a third party manager, we would be dependent on them and their key personnel who provide services to us and we may not find a suitable replacement if the management agreement is terminated, or if key personnel leave or otherwise become unavailable to us. 

14


Our properties face significant competition.
We face significant competition from developers, owners and operators of office and residential properties and other commercial real estate, including sublease space available from our tenants. Substantially all of our properties face competition from similar properties in the same market. This competition may affect our ability to attract and retain tenants and may reduce the rents we are able to charge. These competing properties may have vacancy rates higher than our properties, which may result in their owners being willing to lease available space at lower rates than the space in our properties.
We face potential difficulties or delays renewing leases or re-leasing space.
We derive most of our income from rent received from our tenants. If a tenant experiences a downturn in its business or other types of financial distress, it may be unable to make timely rental payments. Also, when our tenants decide not to renew their leases or terminate early, we may not be able to re-let the space or there could be a substantial delay in re-letting the space. Even if tenants decide to renew or lease new space, the terms of renewals or new leases, including the cost of required renovations or concessions to tenants, may be less favorable to us than current lease terms. As a result, our cash flow could decrease and our ability to make distributions to our securityholders could be adversely affected.
We face potential adverse effects from major tenants’ bankruptcies or insolvencies.
The bankruptcy or insolvency of a major tenant may adversely affect the income produced by our properties. Our tenants could file for bankruptcy protection or become insolvent in the future. We cannot evict a tenant solely because of its bankruptcy. On the other hand, a bankrupt tenant may reject and terminate its lease with us. In such case, our claim against the bankrupt tenant for unpaid and future rent would be subject to a statutory cap that might be substantially less than the remaining rent actually owed under the lease, and, even so, our claim for unpaid rent would likely not be paid in full. This shortfall could adversely affect our cash flow and results of operations.
We face risks associated with the use of debt to fund acquisitions and developments, including refinancing risk. 
We are subject to the risks normally associated with debt financing, including the risk that our cash flow will be insufficient to meet required payments of principal and interest. We anticipate that only a small portion of the principal of our debt will be repaid prior to maturity. Therefore, we are likely to need to refinance at least a portion of our outstanding debt as it matures. There is a risk that we may not be able to refinance existing debt or that the terms of any refinancing will not be as favorable as the terms of our existing debt. If principal payments due at maturity cannot be refinanced, extended or repaid with proceeds from other sources, such as new equity capital, our cash flow may not be sufficient to repay all maturing debt in years when significant “balloon” payments come due. In addition, we may rely on debt to fund a portion of our new investments such as our acquisition and development activity. There is a risk that we may be unable to finance these activities on favorable terms or at all. These conditions, which increase the cost and reduce the availability of debt, may continue or worsen in the future. 
We have agreements with a number of limited partners of BPLP who contributed properties in exchange for partnership interests that require BPLP to maintain for specified periods of time secured debt on certain of our assets and/or allocate partnership debt to such limited partners to enable them to continue to defer recognition of their taxable gain with respect to the contributed property. These tax protection and debt allocation agreements may restrict our ability to repay or refinance debt. 
Adverse economic and geopolitical conditions and dislocations in the credit markets could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to pay distributions to you. 
Our business may be affected by market and economic challenges experienced by the U.S. economy or real estate industry as a whole, by the local economic conditions in the markets in which our properties are located, including the impact of high unemployment, volatility in the public equity and debt markets, and international economic conditions. These current conditions, or similar conditions existing in the future, may adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and ability to pay distributions as a result of the following, among other potential consequences: 
the financial condition of our tenants, many of which are financial, legal and other professional firms, may be adversely affected, which may result in tenant defaults under leases due to bankruptcy, lack of liquidity, operational failures or for other reasons;
significant job losses in the financial and professional services industries may occur, which may decrease demand for our office space, causing market rental rates and property values to be negatively impacted;
our ability to borrow on terms and conditions that we find acceptable, or at all, may be limited, which could reduce our ability to pursue acquisition and development opportunities and refinance existing debt, reduce our returns from our acquisition and development activities and increase our future interest expense;

15


reduced values of our properties may limit our ability to dispose of assets at attractive prices or to obtain debt financing secured by our properties and may reduce the availability of unsecured loans;
the value and liquidity of our short-term investments and cash deposits could be reduced as a result of a deterioration of the financial condition of the institutions that hold our cash deposits or the institutions or assets in which we have made short-term investments, a dislocation of the markets for our short-term investments, increased volatility in market rates for such investments or other factors;
one or more lenders under our line of credit could refuse to fund their financing commitment to us or could fail and we may not be able to replace the financing commitment of any such lenders on favorable terms, or at all; and
to the extent we enter into derivative financial instruments, one or more counterparties to our derivative financial instruments could default on their obligations to us, or could fail, increasing the risk that we may not realize the benefits of these instruments.
An increase in interest rates would increase our interest costs on variable rate debt and could adversely impact our ability to refinance existing debt or sell assets on favorable terms or at all. 
As of February 22, 2016, we had no outstanding indebtedness, excluding our unconsolidated joint ventures, that bears interest at variable rates, but we may incur such indebtedness in the future. If interest rates increase, then so would the interest costs on our unhedged variable rate debt, which could adversely affect our cash flow and our ability to pay principal and interest on our debt and our ability to make distributions to our securityholders. Further, rising interest rates could limit our ability to refinance existing debt when it matures or significantly increase our future interest expense. From time to time, we enter into interest rate swap agreements and other interest rate hedging contracts, including swaps, caps and floors. While these agreements are intended to lessen the impact of rising interest rates on us, they also expose us to the risk that the other parties to the agreements will not perform, we could incur significant costs associated with the settlement of the agreements, the agreements will be unenforceable and the underlying transactions will fail to qualify as highly-effective cash flow hedges under guidance included in ASC 815 “Derivatives and Hedging.” In addition, an increase in interest rates could decrease the amounts third-parties are willing to pay for our assets, thereby limiting our ability to change our portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions. 
Covenants in our debt agreements could adversely affect our financial condition.
The mortgages on our properties contain customary covenants such as those that limit our ability, without the prior consent of the lender, to further mortgage the applicable property or to discontinue insurance coverage. Our unsecured credit facility, unsecured debt securities and certain secured loans contain customary restrictions, requirements and other limitations on our ability to incur indebtedness, including total debt to asset ratios, secured debt to total asset ratios, debt service coverage ratios and minimum ratios of unencumbered assets to unsecured debt, which we must maintain. Our continued ability to borrow under our credit facilities is subject to compliance with our financial and other covenants. In addition, our failure to comply with such covenants could cause a default under the applicable debt agreement, and we may then be required to repay such debt with capital from other sources. Under those circumstances, other sources of capital may not be available to us, or be available only on unattractive terms. Additionally, in the future our ability to satisfy current or prospective lenders’ insurance requirements may be adversely affected if lenders generally insist upon greater insurance coverage against acts of terrorism or losses resulting from earthquakes than is available to us in the marketplace or on commercially reasonable terms. 
We rely on debt financing, including borrowings under our unsecured credit facility, issuances of unsecured debt securities and debt secured by individual properties, to finance our existing portfolio, our acquisition and development activities and for working capital. If we are unable to obtain debt financing from these or other sources, or to refinance existing indebtedness upon maturity, our financial condition and results of operations would likely be adversely affected. If we breach covenants in our debt agreements, the lenders can declare a default and, if the debt is secured, can take possession of the property securing the defaulted loan. In addition, our unsecured debt agreements contain specific cross-default provisions with respect to specified other indebtedness, giving the unsecured lenders the right to declare a default if we are in default under other loans in some circumstances. Defaults under our debt agreements could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. 
Our degree of leverage could limit our ability to obtain additional financing or affect the market price of our equity and debt securities. 
On February 22, 2016, our total consolidated debt was approximately $10.0 billion (excluding unconsolidated joint venture debt). Consolidated debt to total consolidated market capitalization ratio, defined as total consolidated debt as a percentage of the market value of our outstanding equity securities plus our total consolidated debt, is a measure of leverage

16


commonly used by analysts in the REIT sector. Our total consolidated market capitalization was approximately $29.9 billion at February 22, 2016. Total consolidated market capitalization was calculated using the closing stock price of BXP’s common stock of $114.76 per common share and the following: (1) 153,592,481 outstanding shares of BXP common stock, (2) 16,097,473 outstanding common units of partnership interest in BPLP (excluding common units held by BXP), (3) an aggregate of 1,752,512 common units issuable upon conversion of all outstanding LTIP Units, assuming all conditions have been met for the conversion of the LTIP Units, (4) 216,431 2012 OPP Units that were issued in the form of LTIP Units and earned as of February 6, 2015, (5) 103,883 2013 MYLTIP units that were issued in the form of LTIP units and earned as of February 4, 2016, (6) 80,000 shares (8,000,000 depositary shares, each representing 1/100th of a share), of BXP’s 5.25% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock, at a price of $2,500 per share ($25 per depositary share) and (7) our consolidated debt totaling approximately $10.0 billion. The calculation of total consolidated market capitalization does not include 475,558 2014 MYLTIP Units, 367,936 2015 MYLTIP Units and 474,456 2016 MYLTIP Units because, unlike other LTIP Units, they are not earned until certain return thresholds are achieved. Our total consolidated debt, which excludes debt collateralized by our unconsolidated joint ventures, at February 22, 2016, represented approximately 33.48% of our total consolidated market capitalization. This percentage will fluctuate with changes in the value of BPLP’s common units and therefore with changes in the value of BXP’s common stock and does not necessarily reflect our capacity to incur additional debt to finance our activities or our ability to manage our existing debt obligations. However, for a company like ours, whose assets are primarily income-producing real estate, the consolidated debt to total consolidated market capitalization ratio may provide investors with an alternate indication of leverage, so long as it is evaluated along with other financial ratios and the various components of our outstanding indebtedness. 
Our degree of leverage could affect our ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions, development or other general corporate purposes. Our senior unsecured debt is currently rated investment grade by the three major rating agencies. However, there can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain this rating, and in the event our senior debt is downgraded from its current rating, we would likely incur higher borrowing costs and/or difficulty in obtaining additional financing. Our degree of leverage could also make us more vulnerable to a downturn in business or the economy generally. There is a risk that changes in our debt to market capitalization ratio, which is in part a function of BXP’s stock price, or BPLP’s ratio of indebtedness to other measures of asset value used by financial analysts may have an adverse effect on the market price of our equity or debt securities. 
We face risks associated with property acquisitions. 
We have acquired in the past and intend to continue to pursue the acquisition of properties and portfolios of properties, including large portfolios that could increase our size and result in alterations to our capital structure. Our acquisition activities and their success are subject to the following risks: 
even if we enter into an acquisition agreement for a property, we may be unable to complete that acquisition after making a non-refundable deposit and incurring certain other acquisition-related costs;
we may be unable to obtain or assume financing for acquisitions on favorable terms or at all;
acquired properties may fail to perform as expected;
the actual costs of repositioning, redeveloping or maintaining acquired properties may be greater than our estimates;
the acquisition agreement will likely contain conditions to closing, including completion of due diligence investigations to our satisfaction or other conditions that are not within our control, which may not be satisfied;
acquired properties may be located in new markets, either within or outside the United States, where we may face risks associated with a lack of market knowledge or understanding of the local economy, lack of business relationships in the area and unfamiliarity with local governmental and permitting procedures;
we may acquire real estate through the acquisition of the ownership entity subjecting us to the risks of that entity; and
we may be unable to quickly and efficiently integrate new acquisitions, particularly acquisitions of portfolios of properties, into our existing operations, and this could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

17


We have acquired in the past and in the future may acquire properties through the acquisition of first mortgage or mezzanine debt. Investments in these loans must be carefully structured to ensure that BXP continues to satisfy the various asset and income requirements applicable to REITs. If we fail to structure any such acquisition properly, BXP could fail to qualify as a REIT. In addition, acquisitions of first mortgage or mezzanine loans subject us to the risks associated with the borrower’s default, including potential bankruptcy, and there may be significant delays and costs associated with the process of foreclosure on collateral securing or supporting these investments. There can be no assurance that we would recover any or all of our investment in the event of such a default or bankruptcy. 
We have acquired in the past and in the future may acquire properties or portfolios of properties through tax deferred contribution transactions in exchange for partnership interests in BPLP. This acquisition structure has the effect, among others, of reducing the amount of tax depreciation we can deduct over the tax life of the acquired properties, and typically requires that we agree to protect the contributors’ ability to defer recognition of taxable gain through restrictions on our ability to dispose of the acquired properties and/or the allocation of partnership debt to the contributors to maintain their tax bases. These restrictions could limit our ability to sell an asset at a time, or on terms, that would be favorable absent such restrictions. 
Acquired properties may expose us to unknown liability. 
We may acquire properties subject to liabilities and without any recourse, or with only limited recourse, against the prior owners or other third parties with respect to unknown liabilities. As a result, if a liability were asserted against us based upon ownership of those properties, we might have to pay substantial sums to settle or contest it, which could adversely affect our results of operations and cash flow. Unknown liabilities with respect to acquired properties might include: 
liabilities for clean-up of undisclosed environmental contamination;
claims by tenants, vendors or other persons against the former owners of the properties;
liabilities incurred in the ordinary course of business; and
claims for indemnification by general partners, directors, officers and others indemnified by the former owners of the properties.
Competition for acquisitions may result in increased prices for properties. 
We plan to continue to acquire properties as we are presented with attractive opportunities. We may face competition for acquisition opportunities with other investors, and this competition may adversely affect us by subjecting us to the following risks: 
we may be unable to acquire a desired property because of competition from other well-capitalized real estate investors, including publicly traded and private REITs, institutional investment funds and other real estate investors; and
even if we are able to acquire a desired property, competition from other real estate investors may significantly increase the purchase price.
Any future international activities will be subject to special risks and we may not be able to effectively manage our international business. 
We have underwritten, and in the future may acquire, properties, portfolios of properties or interests in real-estate related entities on a strategic or selective basis in international markets that are new to us. If we acquire properties or platforms located in these markets, we will face risks associated with a lack of market knowledge and understanding of the local economy, forging new business relationships in the area and unfamiliarity with local laws and government and permitting procedures. In addition, our international operations will be subject to the usual risks of doing business abroad such as possible revisions in tax treaties or other laws and regulations, including those governing the taxation of our international income, restrictions on the transfer of funds and uncertainty over terrorist activities. We cannot predict the likelihood that any of these developments may occur. Further, we may in the future enter into agreements with non-U.S. entities that are governed by the laws of, and are subject to dispute resolution in the courts of, another country or region. We cannot accurately predict whether such a forum would provide us with an effective and efficient means of resolving disputes that may arise. 
Investments in international markets may also subject us to risks associated with funding increasing headcount, integrating new offices, and establishing effective controls and procedures to regulate the operations of new offices and to monitor compliance with U.S. laws and regulations such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar foreign laws and regulations, such as the U.K. Bribery Act.

18


We may be subject to risks from potential fluctuations in exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the currencies of the other countries in which we invest. 
If we invest in countries where the U.S. dollar is not the national currency, we will be subject to international currency risks from the potential fluctuations in exchange rates between the U.S. dollar and the currencies of those other countries. A significant depreciation in the value of the currency of one or more countries where we have a significant investment may materially affect our results of operations. We may attempt to mitigate any such effects by borrowing in the currency of the country in which we are investing and, under certain circumstances, by hedging exchange rate fluctuations; however, access to capital may be more restricted, or unavailable on favorable terms or at all, in certain locations. For leases denominated in international currencies, we may use derivative financial instruments to manage the international currency exchange risk. We cannot assure you, however, that our efforts will successfully neutralize all international currency risks. 
Our use of joint ventures may limit our flexibility with jointly owned investments.
In appropriate circumstances, we intend to develop, acquire and recapitalize properties in joint ventures with other persons or entities when circumstances warrant the use of these structures. We currently have joint ventures that are and are not consolidated within our financial statements. Our share of the aggregate revenue from all of our joint ventures represented approximately 18.9% of our total revenue (the sum of our total consolidated revenue and our share of such joint venture revenue) for the three months ended December 31, 2015. Our participation in joint ventures subjects us to risks, including but not limited to, the following risks that: 
we could become engaged in a dispute with any of our joint venture partners that might affect our ability to develop, finance or operate a property and could lead to the sale of either parties ownership interest or the property;
some of our joint ventures are subject to debt and in the current credit markets the refinancing of such debt may require equity capital calls;
our joint venture partners may default on their obligations necessitating that we fulfill their obligation ourselves;
our joint venture partners may have different objectives than we have regarding the appropriate timing and terms of any sale or refinancing of properties or the commencement of development activities;
our joint venture partners may be structured differently than us for tax purposes and this could create conflicts of interest;
our joint venture partners may have competing interests in our markets that could create conflicts of interest; and
our joint ventures may be unable to repay any amounts that we may loan to them.
We may have difficulty selling our properties, which may limit our flexibility. 
Properties like the ones that we own could be difficult to sell. This may limit our ability to change our portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions. In addition, federal tax laws limit our ability to sell properties and this may affect our ability to sell properties without adversely affecting returns to our securityholders. These restrictions reduce our ability to respond to changes in the performance of our investments and could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. 
Our ability to dispose of some of our properties is constrained by their tax attributes. Properties which we developed and have owned for a significant period of time or which we acquired through tax deferred contribution transactions in exchange for partnership interests in BPLP often have low tax bases. Furthermore, as a REIT, BXP may be subject to a 100% “prohibited transactions” tax on the gain from dispositions of property if BXP is deemed to hold the property primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business, unless the disposition qualifies under a safe harbor exception for properties that have been held for at least two years and with respect to which certain other requirements are met. The potential application of the prohibited transactions tax could cause us to forego potential dispositions of property or other opportunities that might otherwise be attractive to us, or to undertake such dispositions or other opportunities through a taxable REIT subsidiary, which would generally result in income taxes being incurred. If we dispose of these properties outright in taxable transactions, we may be required to distribute a significant amount of the taxable gain to our securityholders under the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code for REITs, which in turn would impact our future cash flow and may increase our leverage. In some cases, without incurring additional costs we may be restricted from disposing of properties contributed in exchange for our partnership interests under tax protection agreements with contributors. To dispose of low basis or tax-protected properties efficiently we from time to time use like-kind exchanges, which are intended to qualify for non-recognition of taxable gain, but can be difficult to consummate and result in the property for which the disposed assets are exchanged inheriting their low tax bases and other tax attributes (including tax protection covenants). 

19


Conflicts of interest exist with holders of interests in BPLP. 
Sales of properties and repayment of related indebtedness will have different effects on holders of interests in BPLP than on BXP’s stockholders. 
Some holders of interests in BPLP, including Mortimer B. Zuckerman, could incur adverse tax consequences upon the sale of certain of our properties and on the repayment of related debt which differ from the tax consequences to BXP and its stockholders. Consequently, such holders of partnership interests in BPLP may have different objectives regarding the appropriate pricing and timing of any such sale or repayment of debt. While BXP has exclusive authority under the limited partnership agreement of BPLP to determine when to refinance or repay debt or whether, when, and on what terms to sell a property, subject, in the case of certain properties, to the contractual commitments described below, any such decision would require the approval of BXP’s Board of Directors. While the Board of Directors has a policy with respect to these matters, Mr. Zuckerman, as non-executive Chairman, and other directors and executive officers, could exercise their influence in a manner inconsistent with the interests of some, or a majority, of BXP’s stockholders, including in a manner which could prevent completion of a sale of a property or the repayment of indebtedness.
Agreement not to sell some properties. 
We have entered into agreements with respect to some properties that we have acquired in exchange for partnership interests in BPLP. Pursuant to those agreements, we have agreed not to sell or otherwise transfer some of our properties, prior to specified dates, in any transaction that would trigger taxable income and we are responsible for the reimbursement of certain tax-related costs to the prior owners if the subject properties are sold in a taxable sale. In general, our obligations to the prior owners are limited in time and only apply to actual damages suffered. As of December 31, 2015, there was one property subject to these restrictions. This property accounted for approximately 7% of our total revenue (the sum of our total consolidated revenue and our share of joint venture revenue) for the year ended December 31, 2015. 
BPLP has also entered into agreements providing prior owners of properties with the right to guarantee specific amounts of indebtedness and, in the event that the specific indebtedness they guarantee is repaid or reduced, additional and/or substitute indebtedness. These agreements may hinder actions that BPLP may otherwise desire to take to repay or refinance guaranteed indebtedness because BPLP would be required to make payments to the beneficiaries of such agreements if it violates these agreements. 
Because we own a hotel property, we face the risks associated with the hospitality industry. 
The following factors, among others, are common to the hotel industry, and may reduce the receipts generated by our hotel property: 
our hotel property competes for guests with other hotels, a number of which may have greater marketing and financial resources than our hotel-operating business partners;
if there is an increase in operating costs resulting from inflation and other factors, our hotel-operating business partners may not be able to offset such increase by increasing room rates;
our hotel property is subject to the fluctuating and seasonal demands of business travelers and tourism; and
our hotel property is subject to general and local economic and social conditions that may affect demand for travel in general, including war and terrorism.
In addition, because our hotel property is located in Cambridge, Massachusetts, it is subject to the Cambridge market’s fluctuations in demand, increases in operating costs and increased competition from additions in supply.
We face risks associated with short-term liquid investments. 
We continue to have significant cash balances that we invest in a variety of short-term investments that are intended to preserve principal value and maintain a high degree of liquidity while providing current income. From time to time, these investments may include (either directly or indirectly): 
direct obligations issued by the U.S. Treasury;
obligations issued or guaranteed by the U.S. government or its agencies;
taxable municipal securities;
obligations (including certificates of deposit) of banks and thrifts;

20


commercial paper and other instruments consisting of short-term U.S. dollar denominated obligations issued by corporations and banks;
repurchase agreements collateralized by corporate and asset-backed obligations;
both registered and unregistered money market funds; and
other highly rated short-term securities.
Investments in these securities and funds are not insured against loss of principal. Under certain circumstances we may be required to redeem all or part of our investment, and our right to redeem some or all of our investment may be delayed or suspended. In addition, there is no guarantee that our investments in these securities or funds will be redeemable at par value. A decline in the value of our investment or a delay or suspension of our right to redeem may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition. 
Our success depends on key personnel whose continued service is not guaranteed. 
We depend on the efforts of key personnel, particularly Owen D. Thomas, Chief Executive Officer, Douglas T. Linde, President, and Raymond A. Ritchey, Senior Executive Vice President. Among the reasons that Messrs. Thomas, Linde and Ritchey are important to our success is that each has a national reputation, which attracts business and investment opportunities and assists us in negotiations with lenders, joint venture partners and other investors. If we lost their services, our relationships with lenders, potential tenants and industry personnel could diminish.  
Our Chief Financial Officer and Regional Managers also have strong reputations. Their reputations aid us in identifying opportunities, having opportunities brought to us, and negotiating with tenants and build-to-suit prospects. While we believe that we could find replacements for these key personnel, the loss of their services could materially and adversely affect our operations because of diminished relationships with lenders, prospective tenants and industry personnel. 
Compliance or failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act or other safety regulations and requirements could result in substantial costs. 
The Americans with Disabilities Act generally requires that certain buildings, including office buildings, residential buildings and hotels, be made accessible to disabled persons. Noncompliance could result in the imposition of fines by the federal government or the award of damages to private litigants. If, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, we are required to make substantial alterations and capital expenditures in one or more of our properties, including the removal of access barriers, it could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations, as well as the amount of cash available for distribution to our securityholders. 
Our properties are subject to various federal, state and local regulatory requirements, such as state and local fire and life safety requirements. If we fail to comply with these requirements, we could incur fines or private damage awards. We do not know whether existing requirements will change or whether compliance with future requirements will require significant unanticipated expenditures that will affect our cash flow and results of operations. 
Failure to comply with federal Government contractor requirements could result in substantial costs and loss of substantial revenue. 
As of December 31, 2015, the U.S. Government was our largest tenant by square feet. We are subject to compliance with a wide variety of complex legal requirements because we are a federal Government contractor. These laws regulate how we conduct business, require us to administer various compliance programs and require us to impose compliance responsibilities on some of our contractors. Our failure to comply with these laws could subject us to fines, penalties and damages, cause us to be in default of our leases and other contracts with the federal Government and bar us from entering into future leases and other contracts with the federal Government. There can be no assurance that these costs and loss of revenue will not have a material adverse effect on our properties, operations or business.
Some potential losses are not covered by insurance. 
We carry insurance coverage on our properties of types and in amounts and with deductibles that we believe are in line with coverage customarily obtained by owners of similar properties. In response to the uncertainty in the insurance market following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Federal Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (as amended, “TRIA”) was enacted in November 2002 to require regulated insurers to make available coverage for “certified” acts of terrorism (as defined by the statute). The expiration date of TRIA was extended to December 31, 2014 by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 and further extended to December 31, 2020 by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program

21


Reauthorization Act of 2015 (“TRIPRA”), and we can provide no assurance that it will be extended further. Currently, the per occurrence limits of our portfolio property insurance program are $1.0 billion, including coverage for acts of terrorism other than nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological terrorism (“Terrorism Coverage”). We also carry $250 million of Terrorism Coverage for 601 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York (“601 Lexington Avenue”) in excess of the $1.0 billion of Terrorism Coverage in our property insurance program. Certain properties, including the General Motors Building located at 767 Fifth Avenue in New York, New York (“767 Fifth Avenue”), are currently insured in separate insurance programs. The property insurance program per occurrence limits for 767 Fifth Avenue are $1.625 billion, including Terrorism Coverage. We also currently carry nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological terrorism insurance coverage for acts of terrorism certified under TRIA (“NBCR Coverage”), which is provided by IXP, as a direct insurer, for the properties in our portfolio, including 767 Fifth Avenue, but excluding certain other properties owned in joint ventures with third parties or which we manage. The per occurrence limit for NBCR Coverage is $1 billion. Under TRIA, after the payment of the required deductible and coinsurance, the NBCR Coverage provided by IXP is backstopped by the Federal Government if the aggregate industry insured losses resulting from a certified act of terrorism exceed a “program trigger.” In 2015, the program trigger was $100.0 million and the coinsurance was 15%, however both will increase in subsequent years pursuant to TRIPRA. If the Federal Government pays out for a loss under TRIA, it is mandatory that the Federal Government recoup the full amount of the loss from insurers offering TRIA coverage after the payment of the loss pursuant to a formula in TRIPRA. We may elect to terminate the NBCR Coverage if the Federal Government seeks recoupment for losses paid under TRIA, if there is a change in our portfolio or for any other reason. We intend to continue to monitor the scope, nature and cost of available terrorism insurance and maintain terrorism insurance in amounts and on terms that are commercially reasonable.
We also currently carry earthquake insurance on our properties located in areas known to be subject to earthquakes in an amount and subject to self-insurance that we believe is commercially reasonable. In addition, this insurance is subject to a deductible in the amount of 5% of the value of the affected property. Specifically, we currently carry earthquake insurance which covers our San Francisco region (excluding Salesforce Tower) with a $170 million per occurrence limit (increased on March 1, 2015 from $120 million) and a $170 million annual aggregate limit (increased on March 1, 2015 from $120 million), $20 million of which is provided by IXP, as a direct insurer. The builders risk policy maintained for the development of Salesforce Tower in San Francisco includes a $60 million per occurrence and annual aggregate limit of earthquake coverage. The amount of our earthquake insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover losses from earthquakes. In addition, the amount of earthquake coverage could impact our ability to finance properties subject to earthquake risk. We may discontinue earthquake insurance or change the structure of our earthquake insurance program on some or all of our properties in the future if the premiums exceed our estimation of the value of the coverage.
IXP, a captive insurance company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary, acts as a direct insurer with respect to a portion of our earthquake insurance coverage for our Greater San Francisco properties and our NBCR Coverage. Insofar as we own IXP, we are responsible for its liquidity and capital resources, and the accounts of IXP are part of our consolidated financial statements. In particular, if a loss occurs which is covered by our NBCR Coverage but is less than the applicable program trigger under TRIA, IXP would be responsible for the full amount of the loss without any backstop by the Federal Government. IXP would also be responsible for any recoupment charges by the Federal Government in the event losses are paid out and its insurance policy is maintained after the payout by the Federal Government. If we experience a loss and IXP is required to pay under its insurance policy, we would ultimately record the loss to the extent of the required payment. Therefore, insurance coverage provided by IXP should not be considered as the equivalent of third-party insurance, but rather as a modified form of self-insurance. In addition, BPLP has issued a guarantee to cover liabilities of IXP in the amount of $20.0 million.
The mortgages on our properties typically contain requirements concerning the financial ratings of the insurers who provide policies covering the property. We provide the lenders on a regular basis with the identity of the insurance companies in our insurance programs. The ratings of some of our insurers are below the rating requirements in some of our loan agreements and the lenders for these loans could attempt to claim an event of default has occurred under the loan. We believe we could obtain insurance with insurers which satisfy the rating requirements. Additionally, in the future our ability to obtain debt financing secured by individual properties, or the terms of such financing, may be adversely affected if lenders generally insist on ratings for insurers or amounts of insurance which are difficult to obtain or which result in a commercially unreasonable premium. There can be no assurance that a deficiency in the financial ratings of one or more of our insurers will not have a material adverse effect on us.
We continue to monitor the state of the insurance market in general, and the scope and costs of coverage for acts of terrorism and California earthquake risk in particular, but we cannot anticipate what coverage will be available on commercially reasonable terms in future policy years. There are other types of losses, such as from wars, for which we cannot obtain insurance at all or at a reasonable cost. With respect to such losses and losses from acts of terrorism, earthquakes or other catastrophic events, if we experience a loss that is uninsured or that exceeds policy limits, we could lose the capital invested in the damaged properties, as well as the anticipated future revenues from those properties. Depending on the specific circumstances of each affected property, it is possible that we could be liable for mortgage indebtedness or other obligations

22


related to the property. Any such loss could materially and adversely affect our business and financial condition and results of operations.
Actual or threatened terrorist attacks may adversely affect our ability to generate revenues and the value of our properties. 
We have significant investments in large metropolitan markets that have been or may be in the future the targets of actual or threatened terrorism attacks, including Boston, New York, San Francisco and Washington, DC. As a result, some tenants in these markets may choose to relocate their businesses to other markets or to lower-profile office buildings within these markets that may be perceived to be less likely targets of future terrorist activity. This could result in an overall decrease in the demand for office space in these markets generally or in our properties in particular, which could increase vacancies in our properties or necessitate that we lease our properties on less favorable terms or both. In addition, future terrorist attacks in these markets could directly or indirectly damage our properties, both physically and financially, or cause losses that materially exceed our insurance coverage. As a result of the foregoing, our ability to generate revenues and the value of our properties could decline materially. See also “—Some potential losses are not covered by insurance.” 
We face risks associated with our tenants and contractual counterparties being designated “Prohibited Persons” by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. 
Pursuant to Executive Order 13224 and other laws, the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury (“OFAC”) maintains a list of persons designated as terrorists or who are otherwise blocked or banned (“Prohibited Persons”). OFAC regulations and other laws prohibit conducting business or engaging in transactions with Prohibited Persons (the “OFAC Requirements”). Certain of our loan and other agreements require us to comply with OFAC Requirements. We have established a compliance program whereby tenants and others with whom we conduct business are checked against the OFAC list of Prohibited Persons prior to entering into any agreement and on a periodic basis thereafter. Our leases and other agreements, in general, require the other party to comply with OFAC Requirements. If a tenant or other party with whom we contract is placed on the OFAC list we may be required by the OFAC Requirements to terminate the lease or other agreement. Any such termination could result in a loss of revenue or a damage claim by the other party that the termination was wrongful. 
We face possible risks associated with the physical effects of climate change. 
The physical effects of climate change could have a material adverse effect on our properties, operations and business. For example, many of our properties are located along the East and West coasts, particularly those in the Central Business Districts of Boston, New York, and San Francisco. To the extent climate change causes changes in weather patterns, our markets could experience increases in storm intensity and rising sea-levels. Over time, these conditions could result in declining demand for office space in our buildings or our inability to operate the buildings at all. Climate change may also have indirect effects on our business by increasing the cost of (or making unavailable) property insurance on terms we find acceptable, increasing the cost of energy and increasing the cost of snow removal at our properties. There can be no assurance that climate change will not have a material adverse effect on our properties, operations or business. 
Potential liability for environmental contamination could result in substantial costs.
Under federal, state and local environmental laws, ordinances and regulations, we may be required to investigate and clean up the effects of releases of hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products at or migrating from our properties simply because of our current or past ownership or operation of the real estate. If unidentified environmental problems arise, we may have to make substantial payments, which could adversely affect our cash flow and our ability to make distributions to our securityholders, because: as owner or operator we may have to pay for property damage and for investigation and clean-up costs incurred in connection with the contamination; the law typically imposes clean-up responsibility and liability regardless of whether the owner or operator knew of or caused the contamination; even if more than one person may be responsible for the contamination, each person who shares legal liability under the environmental laws may be held responsible for all of the clean-up costs; and governmental entities and third parties may sue the owner or operator of a contaminated site for damages and costs.
These costs could be substantial and in extreme cases could exceed the amount of our insurance or the value of the contaminated property. We currently carry environmental insurance in an amount and subject to deductibles that we believe are commercially reasonable. Specifically, we carry a pollution legal liability policy with a $20 million limit per incident and a policy aggregate limit of $40 million. The presence or migration of hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products or the failure to properly remediate contamination may give rise to third-party claims for bodily injury, property damage and/or response costs and may materially and adversely affect our ability to borrow against, sell or rent an affected property. In addition, applicable environmental laws create liens on contaminated sites in favor of the government for damages and costs it incurs in connection with contamination. Changes in laws, regulations and practices and their implementation increasing the

23


potential liability for environmental conditions existing at our properties, or increasing the restrictions on the handling, storage or discharge of hazardous or toxic substances or petroleum products or other actions may result in significant unanticipated expenditures.
Environmental laws also govern the presence, maintenance and removal of asbestos and other building materials. For example, laws require that owners or operators of buildings containing asbestos: 
properly manage and maintain the asbestos;
notify and train those who may come into contact with asbestos; and
undertake special precautions, including removal or other abatement, if asbestos would be disturbed during renovation or demolition of a building.
Such laws may impose fines and penalties on building owners or operators who fail to comply with these requirements and may allow third parties to seek recovery from owners or operators for personal injury associated with exposure to asbestos fibers. 
Some of our properties are located in urban and previously developed areas where fill or current or historic industrial uses of the areas have caused site contamination. It is our policy to retain independent environmental consultants to conduct or update Phase I environmental site assessments and asbestos surveys with respect to our acquisition of properties. These assessments generally include a visual inspection of the properties and the surrounding areas, an examination of current and historical uses of the properties and the surrounding areas and a review of relevant state, federal and historical documents, but do not involve invasive techniques such as soil and ground water sampling. Where appropriate, on a property-by-property basis, our practice is to have these consultants conduct additional testing, including sampling for asbestos, for lead and other contaminants in drinking water and, for soil and/or groundwater contamination where underground storage tanks are or were located or where other past site usage creates a potential environmental problem. Even though these environmental assessments are conducted, there is still the risk that: 
the environmental assessments and updates did not identify or properly address all potential environmental liabilities;
a prior owner created a material environmental condition that is not known to us or the independent consultants preparing the assessments;
new environmental liabilities have developed since the environmental assessments were conducted; and
future uses or conditions such as changes in applicable environmental laws and regulations could result in environmental liability for us.
Inquiries about indoor air quality may necessitate special investigation and, depending on the results, remediation beyond our regular indoor air quality testing and maintenance programs. Indoor air quality issues can stem from inadequate ventilation, chemical contaminants from indoor or outdoor sources, and biological contaminants such as molds, pollen, viruses and bacteria. Indoor exposure to chemical or biological contaminants above certain levels can be alleged to be connected to allergic reactions or other health effects and symptoms in susceptible individuals. If these conditions were to occur at one of our properties, we may be subject to third-party claims for personal injury, or may need to undertake a targeted remediation program, including without limitation, steps to increase indoor ventilation rates and eliminate sources of contaminants. Such remediation programs could be costly, necessitate the temporary relocation of some or all of the property’s tenants or require rehabilitation of the affected property. 
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 inside our organization, and other significant disruptions of our IT networks and related systems. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber attack or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, foreign governments and cyber terrorists, has generally increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased. Our IT networks and related systems are essential to the operation of our business and our ability to perform day-to-day operations (including managing our building systems) 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

24


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 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 security breach or other significant disruption involving our IT networks and related systems could: 
disrupt the proper functioning of our networks and systems and therefore our operations and/or those of certain of our tenants;
result in misstated financial reports, violations of loan covenants, missed reporting deadlines and/or missed permitting deadlines;
result in our inability to properly monitor our compliance with the rules and regulations regarding BXP’s qualification as a REIT;
result in the unauthorized access to, and destruction, loss, theft, misappropriation or release of, proprietary, confidential, sensitive or otherwise valuable information of ours or others, which others could use to compete against us or which could expose us to damage claims by third-parties for disruptive, destructive or otherwise harmful purposes and outcomes;
result in our inability to maintain the building systems relied upon by our tenants for the efficient use of their leased space;
require significant management attention and resources to remedy any damages that result;
subject us to claims for breach of contract, damages, credits, penalties or termination of leases or other agreements; or
damage our reputation among our tenants and investors generally.
Any or all of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.
We did not obtain new owner’s title insurance policies in connection with properties acquired during BXP’s initial public offering. 
We acquired many of our properties from our predecessors at the completion of BXP’s initial public offering in June 1997. Before we acquired these properties, each of them was insured by a title insurance policy. We did not obtain new owner’s title insurance policies in connection with the acquisition of these properties. To the extent we have financed properties after acquiring them in connection with the initial public offering, we have obtained new title insurance policies, however, the amount of these policies may be less than the current or future value of the applicable properties. Nevertheless, because in many instances we acquired these properties indirectly by acquiring ownership of the entity that owned the property and those owners remain in existence as our subsidiaries, some of these title insurance policies may continue to benefit us. Many of these title insurance policies may be for amounts less than the current or future values of the applicable properties. If there was a title defect related to any of these properties, or to any of the properties acquired at the time of the initial public offering of BXP, that is no longer covered by a title insurance policy, we could lose both our capital invested in and our anticipated profits from such property. We have obtained title insurance policies for all properties that we have acquired after the initial public offering of BXP, however, these policies may be for amounts less than the current or future values of the applicable properties. 
We may be subject to adverse legislative or regulatory tax changes that could negatively impact our financial condition.
At any time, the U.S. federal income tax laws governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws may be amended, including with respect to our hotel ownership structure. We cannot predict if or when any new U.S. federal income tax law, regulation, or administrative interpretation, or any amendment to any existing U.S. federal income tax law, Treasury regulation or administrative interpretation, will be adopted, promulgated or become effective and any such law, regulation, or interpretation may take effect retroactively. BXP, its taxable REIT subsidiaries, and our securityholders could be adversely affected by any such change in, or any new, U.S. federal income tax law, Treasury regulation or administrative interpretation.
We face possible adverse state local tax audits and changes in state and local tax law.
Because BXP is organized and qualifies as a REIT, it is generally not subject to federal income taxes, but we are subject to certain state and local taxes. In the normal course of business, certain entities through which we own real estate either have

25


undergone, or are currently undergoing, tax audits. Although we believe that we have substantial arguments in favor of our positions in the ongoing audits, in some instances there is no controlling precedent or interpretive guidance on the specific point at issue. Collectively, tax deficiency notices received to date from the jurisdictions conducting the ongoing audits have not been material. However, there can be no assurance that future audits will not occur with increased frequency or that the ultimate result of such audits will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.
From time to time changes in state and local tax laws or regulations are enacted, which may result in an increase in our tax liability. A shortfall in tax revenues for states and municipalities in which we operate may lead to an increase in the frequency and size of such changes. If such changes occur, we may be required to pay additional taxes on our assets or income. These increased tax costs could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations and the amount of cash available for the payment of dividends and distributions to our securityholders. 
Changes in accounting pronouncements could adversely affect our operating results, in addition to the reported financial performance of our tenants. 
Accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. Uncertainties posed by various initiatives of accounting standard-setting by the Financial Accounting Standards Board and the Securities and Exchange Commission, which create and interpret applicable accounting standards for U.S. companies, may change the financial accounting and reporting standards or their interpretation and application of these standards that govern the preparation of our financial statements. Proposed changes include, but are not limited to, changes in lease accounting and the adoption of accounting standards likely to require the increased use of “fair-value” measures. 
These changes could have a material impact on our reported financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, we could be required to apply a new or revised standard retroactively, resulting in potentially material restatements of prior period financial statements. Similarly, these changes could have a material impact on our tenants’ reported financial condition or results of operations or could affect our tenants’ preferences regarding leasing real estate. 
Failure to qualify as a real estate investment trust would cause BXP to be taxed as a corporation, which would substantially reduce funds available for payment of dividends. 
If BXP fails to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, it will be taxed as a corporation unless certain relief provisions apply. We believe that BXP is organized and qualified as a REIT and intends to operate in a manner that will allow BXP to continue to qualify as a REIT. However, we cannot assure you that BXP is qualified as such, or that it will remain qualified as such in the future. This is because qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex provisions of the Internal Revenue Code as to which there are only limited judicial and administrative interpretations and involves the determination of facts and circumstances not entirely within our control. Future legislation, new regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions may significantly change the tax laws or the application of the tax laws with respect to qualification as a REIT for federal income tax purposes or the federal income tax consequences of such qualification. 
In addition, we currently hold certain of our properties through subsidiaries that have elected to be taxed as REITs and we may in the future determine that it is in our best interests to hold one or more of our other properties through one or more subsidiaries that elect to be taxed as REITs. If any of these subsidiaries fails to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, then BXP may also fail to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. 
If BXP fails to qualify as a REIT then, unless certain relief provisions apply, it will face serious tax consequences that will substantially reduce the funds available for payment of dividends for each of the years involved because: 
BXP would not be allowed a deduction for dividends paid to stockholders in computing its taxable income and would be subject to federal income tax at regular corporate rates;
BXP also could be subject to the federal alternative minimum tax and possibly increased state and local taxes; and
unless BXP is entitled to relief under statutory provisions, BXP could not elect to be subject to tax as a REIT for four taxable years following the year during which it was disqualified.
In addition, if BXP fails to qualify as a REIT and the relief provisions do not apply, it will no longer be required to pay dividends. As a result of all these factors, BXP’s failure to qualify as a REIT could impair our ability to raise capital and expand our business, and it would adversely affect the value of BXP’s common stock. If BXP fails to qualify as a REIT but is eligible for certain relief provisions, then it may retain its status as a REIT, but may be required to pay a penalty tax, which could be substantial. 

26


In order to maintain BXP’s REIT status, we may be forced to borrow funds during unfavorable market conditions. 
In order to maintain BXP’s REIT status, we may need to borrow funds on a short-term basis to meet the REIT distribution requirements, even if the then-prevailing market conditions are not favorable for these borrowings. To qualify as a REIT, BXP generally must distribute to its stockholders at least 90% of its taxable income each year, excluding capital gains and with certain other adjustments. In addition, BXP will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount, if any, by which dividends paid in any calendar year are less than the sum of 85% of ordinary income, 95% of capital gain net income and 100% of undistributed income from prior years. We may need short-term debt or long-term debt or proceeds from asset sales, creation of joint ventures or sales of common stock to fund required distributions as a result of differences in timing between the actual receipt of income and the recognition of income for federal income tax purposes, or the effect of non-deductible capital expenditures, the creation of reserves or required debt or amortization payments. The inability of our cash flows to cover our distribution requirements could have an adverse impact on our ability to raise short- and long-term debt or sell equity securities in order to fund distributions required to maintain BXP’s REIT status. 
Limits on changes in control may discourage takeover attempts beneficial to stockholders. 
Provisions in BXP’s charter and bylaws, BXP’s shareholder rights agreement and the limited partnership agreement of BPLP, as well as provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and Delaware corporate law, may: 
delay or prevent a change of control over BXP or a tender offer, even if such action might be beneficial to BXP’s stockholders; and
limit BXP’s stockholders’ opportunity to receive a potential premium for their shares of common stock over then-prevailing market prices.
Stock Ownership Limit 
To facilitate maintenance of BXP’s qualification as a REIT and to otherwise address concerns relating to concentration of stock ownership, BXP’s charter generally prohibits ownership, directly, indirectly or beneficially, by any single stockholder of more than 6.6% of the number of outstanding shares of any class or series of its common stock. We refer to this limitation as the “ownership limit.” BXP’s Board of Directors may waive, in its sole discretion, or modify the ownership limit with respect to one or more persons if it is satisfied that ownership in excess of this limit will not jeopardize BXP’s status as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. In addition, under BXP’s charter, each of Mortimer B. Zuckerman and the respective families and affiliates of Mortimer B. Zuckerman and Edward H. Linde, as well as, in general, pension plans and mutual funds, may actually and beneficially own up to 15% of the number of outstanding shares of any class or series of BXP’s equity common stock. Shares owned in violation of the ownership limit will be subject to the loss of rights to distributions and voting and other penalties. The ownership limit may have the effect of inhibiting or impeding a change in control. 
BPLP’s Partnership Agreement 
BXP has agreed in the limited partnership agreement of BPLP not to engage in specified extraordinary transactions, including, among others, business combinations, unless limited partners of BPLP other than BXP receives, or have the opportunity to receive, either (1) the same consideration for their partnership interests as holders of BXP common stock in the transaction or (2) limited partnership units that, among other things, would entitle the holders, upon redemption of these units, to receive shares of common equity of a publicly traded company or the same consideration as holders of BXP common stock received in the transaction. If these limited partners would not receive such consideration, we cannot engage in the transaction unless limited partners holding at least 75% of the common units of limited partnership interest, other than those held by BXP or its affiliates, consent to the transaction. In addition, BXP has agreed in the limited partnership agreement of BPLP that it will not complete specified extraordinary transactions, including among others, business combinations, in which BXP receive the approval of its common stockholders unless (1) limited partners holding at least 75% of the common units of limited partnership interest, other than those held by BXP or its affiliates, consent to the transaction or (2) the limited partners of BPLP are also allowed to vote and the transaction would have been approved had these limited partners been able to vote as common stockholders on the transaction. Therefore, if BXP’s common stockholders approve a specified extraordinary transaction, the partnership agreement requires the following before it can complete the transaction: 
holders of partnership interests in BPLP, including BXP, must vote on the matter;
BXP must vote its partnership interests in the same proportion as its stockholders voted on the transaction; and
the result of the vote of holders of partnership interests in BPLP must be such that had such vote been a vote of stockholders, the business combination would have been approved.

27


With respect to specified extraordinary transactions, BXP has agreed in BPLP’s partnership agreement to use its commercially reasonable efforts to structure such a transaction to avoid causing its limited partners to recognize gain for federal income tax purposes by virtue of the occurrence of or their participation in such a transaction.
As a result of these provisions, a potential acquirer may be deterred from making an acquisition proposal, and BXP may be prohibited by contract from engaging in a proposed extraordinary transaction, including a proposed business combination, even though BXP stockholders approve of the transaction. 
Shareholder Rights Plan 
BXP has a shareholder rights plan. Under the terms of this plan, BXP can in effect prevent a person or group from acquiring more than 15% of the outstanding shares of its common stock because, unless BXP’s Board of Directors approves of the acquisition, after the person acquires more than 15% of BXP’s outstanding common stock, all other stockholders will have the right to purchase securities from BXP at a price that is less than their then fair market value. This would substantially reduce the value and influence of the stock owned by the acquiring person. The Board of Directors of BXP can prevent the plan from operating by approving the transaction in advance, which gives us significant power to approve or disapprove of the efforts of a person or group to acquire a large interest in our company. 
Changes in market conditions could adversely affect the market price of BXP’s common stock. 
As with other publicly traded equity securities, the value of BXP’s common stock depends on various market conditions that may change from time to time. Among the market conditions that may affect the value of BXP’s common stock are the following: 
the extent of investor interest in our securities;
the general reputation of REITs and the attractiveness of our equity securities in comparison to other equity securities, including securities issued by other real estate-based companies;
our underlying asset value;
investor confidence in the stock and bond markets, generally;
national economic conditions;
changes in tax laws;
our financial performance;
changes in our credit ratings; and
general stock and bond market conditions.
The market value of BXP’s common stock is based primarily upon the market’s perception of our growth potential and our current and potential future earnings and cash dividends. Consequently, BXP’s common stock may trade at prices that are greater or less than BXP’s net asset value per share of common stock. If our future earnings or cash dividends are less than expected, it is likely that the market price of BXP’s common stock will diminish. 
Further issuances of equity securities may be dilutive to current securityholders. 
The interests of our existing securityholders could be diluted if additional equity securities are issued to finance future developments, acquisitions or repay indebtedness. Our ability to execute our business strategy depends on our access to an appropriate blend of debt financing, including unsecured lines of credit and other forms of secured and unsecured debt, and equity financing, including common and preferred equity.
The number of shares available for future sale could adversely affect the market price of BXP’s stock. 
In connection with and subsequent to BXP’s initial public offering, we have completed many private placement transactions in which shares of stock of BXP or partnership interests in BPLP were issued to owners of properties we acquired or to institutional investors. This common stock, or common stock issuable in exchange for such partnership interests in BPLP, may be sold in the public securities markets over time under registration rights we granted to these investors. Additional common stock issuable under our employee benefit and other incentive plans, including as a result of the grant of stock options and restricted equity securities, may also be sold in the market at some time in the future. Future sales of BXP common stock in

28


the market could adversely affect the price of its common stock. We cannot predict the effect the perception in the market that such sales may occur will have on the market price of BXP’s common stock. 
We may change our policies without obtaining the approval of our stockholders. 
Our operating and financial policies, including our policies with respect to acquisitions of real estate, growth, operations, indebtedness, capitalization and dividends, are exclusively determined by BXP’s Board of Directors. Accordingly, our securityholders do not control these policies.
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments
None.

29


Item 2. Properties.
At December 31, 2015, we owned or had interests in 168 commercial real estate properties, totaling approximately 46.5 million net rentable square feet, including eleven properties under construction/redevelopment totaling approximately 4.6 million net rentable square feet. Our properties consisted of (1) 158 office properties, including 127 Class A office buildings, including nine properties under construction/redevelopment, and 31 properties that support both office and technical uses, (2) five retail properties, (3) one hotel and (4) four residential properties (including two under construction). In addition, we own or control 457.1 acres of land parcels for future development. The table set forth below shows information relating to the properties we owned, or in which we had an ownership interest, at December 31, 2015.
Properties
 
Location
 
% Leased as of
December 31, 2015 (1)
 
 
 
Number
of
Buildings
 
Net
Rentable
Square Feet
 
 
Class A Office
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
767 Fifth Avenue (the General Motors Building) (60% ownership)
 
New York, NY
 
96.7
%
 
 
 
1

 
1,822,412

 
 
200 Clarendon Street (formerly the John Hancock Tower)
 
Boston, MA
 
77.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
1,742,257

 
 
399 Park Avenue
 
New York, NY
 
98.9
%
 
 
 
1

 
1,710,383

 
 
601 Lexington Avenue (55% ownership)
 
New York, NY
 
96.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
1,632,710

 
 
100 Federal Street (55% ownership)
 
Boston, MA
 
83.9
%
 
 
 
1

 
1,266,305

 
 
Times Square Tower (55% ownership)
 
New York, NY
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
1,247,454

 
 
800 Boylston Street - The Prudential Center
 
Boston, MA
 
90.8
%
 
 
 
1

 
1,227,964

 
 
599 Lexington Avenue
 
New York, NY
 
99.3
%
 
 
 
1

 
1,057,978

 
 
Bay Colony Corporate Center
 
Waltham, MA
 
79.7
%
 
 
 
4

 
1,006,062

 
 
250 West 55th Street
 
New York, NY
 
82.8
%
 
 
 
1

 
986,823

 
 
Embarcadero Center Four
 
San Francisco, CA
 
89.1
%
 
 
 
1

 
935,615

 
 
111 Huntington Avenue - The Prudential Center
 
Boston, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
860,455

 
 
Embarcadero Center One
 
San Francisco, CA
 
95.3
%
 
 
 
1

 
830,960

 
 
Atlantic Wharf Office (55% ownership)
 
Boston, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
793,827

 
 
Embarcadero Center Two
 
San Francisco, CA
 
87.4
%
 
 
 
1

 
780,668

 
 
Embarcadero Center Three
 
San Francisco, CA
 
95.7
%
 
 
 
1

 
775,268

 
 
Capital Gallery
 
Washington, DC
 
99.8
%
 
 
 
1

 
631,029

 
 
South of Market
 
Reston, VA
 
89.7
%
 
 
 
3

 
623,665

 
 
Metropolitan Square (51% ownership) (2)
 
Washington, DC
 
77.5
%
 
 
 
1

 
589,629

 
 
901 New York Avenue (25% ownership) (2)
 
Washington, DC
 
92.4
%
 
 
 
1

 
539,680

 
 
Reservoir Place
 
Waltham, MA
 
94.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
528,885

 
 
680 Folsom Street
 
San Francisco, CA
 
98.4
%
 
 
 
2

 
524,793

 
 
Fountain Square
 
Reston, VA
 
95.2
%
 
 
 
2

 
521,598

 
 
601 and 651 Gateway
 
South San Francisco, CA
99.6
%
 
 
 
2

 
506,279

 
 
101 Huntington Avenue - The Prudential Center
 
Boston, MA
 
95.6
%
 
 
 
1

 
505,249

 
 
2200 Pennsylvania Avenue
 
Washington, DC
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
458,831

 
 
One Freedom Square
 
Reston, VA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
432,581

 
 
Two Freedom Square
 
Reston, VA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
421,757

 
 
Market Square North (50% ownership) (2)
 
Washington, DC
 
72.8
%
 
 
 
1

 
415,523

 
 
One Tower Center
 
East Brunswick, NJ
 
35.5
%
 
 
 
1

 
412,797

 
 

30


Properties
 
Location
 
% Leased as of
December 31, 2015 (1)
 
 
 
Number
of
Buildings
 
Net
Rentable
Square Feet
 
 
140 Kendrick Street
 
Needham, MA
 
84.2
%
 
 
 
3

 
380,987

 
 
One and Two Discovery Square
 
Reston, VA
 
97.8
%
 
 
 
2

 
366,990

 
 
Weston Corporate Center
 
Weston, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
356,995

 
 
510 Madison Avenue
 
New York, NY
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
355,598

 
 
One Reston Overlook
 
Reston, VA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
319,519

 
 
1333 New Hampshire Avenue
 
Washington, DC
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
315,371

 
 
535 Mission Street (3)
 
San Francisco, CA
 
82.3
%
 
 
 
1

 
307,235

 
 
Waltham Weston Corporate Center
 
Waltham, MA
 
90.3
%
 
 
 
1

 
306,687

 
 
230 CityPoint
 
Waltham, MA
 
93.9
%
 
 
 
1

 
300,573

 
 
Wisconsin Place Office
 
Chevy Chase, MD
 
97.6
%
 
 
 
1

 
299,186

 
 
540 Madison Avenue (60% ownership) (2)
 
New York, NY
 
93.6
%
 
 
 
1

 
283,695

 
 
Quorum Office Park
 
Chelmsford, MA
 
90.0
%
 
 
 
2

 
267,527

 
 
355 Main Street
 
Cambridge, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
265,342

 
 
Reston Corporate Center
 
Reston, VA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
2

 
261,046

 
 
611 Gateway
 
South San Francisco, CA
95.2
%
 
 
 
1

 
260,337

 
 
Democracy Tower
 
Reston, VA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
259,441

 
 
New Dominion Technology Park - Building Two
 
Herndon, VA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
257,400

 
 
200 West Street
 
Waltham, MA
 
99.3
%
 
 
 
1

 
256,245

 
 
1330 Connecticut Avenue
 
Washington, DC
 
98.7
%
 
 
 
1

 
252,171

 
 
500 E Street, S.W.
 
Washington, DC
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
251,994

 
 
New Dominion Technology Park - Building One
 
Herndon, VA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
235,201

 
 
510 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
234,160

 
 
500 North Capitol Street, N.W. (30% ownership) (2)
 
Washington, DC
 
92.8
%
 
 
 
1

 
230,859

 
 
90 Broadway
 
Cambridge, MA
 
96.1
%
 
 
 
1

 
223,771

 
 
255 Main Street
 
Cambridge, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
215,629

 
 
77 CityPoint
 
Waltham, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
209,707

 
 
Sumner Square
 
Washington, DC
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
208,892

 
 
University Place
 
Cambridge, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
195,282

 
 
300 Binney Street
 
Cambridge, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
195,191

 
 
North First Business Park (4)
 
San Jose, CA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
5

 
190,636

 
 
2600 Tower Oaks Boulevard
 
Rockville, MD
 
60.9
%
 
 
 
1

 
179,369

 
 
150 Broadway
 
Cambridge, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
177,226

 
 
Lexington Office Park
 
Lexington, MA
 
88.1
%
 
 
 
2

 
166,858

 
 
210 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
73.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
162,372

 
 
206 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
161,763

 
 
191 Spring Street
 
Lexington, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
158,900

 
 
Kingstowne Two
 
Alexandria, VA
 
93.7
%
 
 
 
1

 
156,251

 
 
105 Broadway
 
Cambridge, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
152,664

 
 
212 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
86.9
%
 
 
 
1

 
151,547

 
 
Kingstowne One
 
Alexandria, VA
 
77.7
%
 
 
 
1

 
151,483

 
 
214 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
67.6
%
 
 
 
1

 
150,774

 
 
506 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
62.5
%
 
 
 
1

 
149,110

 
 
2440 West El Camino Real
 
Mountain View, CA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
141,392

 
 
Two Reston Overlook
 
Reston, VA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
134,615

 
 

31


Properties
 
Location
 
% Leased as of
December 31, 2015 (1)
 
 
 
Number
of
Buildings
 
Net
Rentable
Square Feet
 
 
508 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
96.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
134,433

 
 
202 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
45.5
%
 
 
 
1

 
134,068

 
 
101 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
86.5
%
 
 
 
1

 
128,288

 
 
Annapolis Junction Building Seven (50% ownership) (2)
 
Annapolis, MD
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
127,229

 
 
Annapolis Junction Building Eight (50% ownership) (2)
 
Annapolis, MD
 
%
 
 
 
1

 
125,685

 
 
504 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
48.3
%
 
 
 
1

 
121,990

 
 
40 Shattuck Road
 
Andover, MA
 
81.6
%
 
 
 
1

 
121,542

 
 
502 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
91.3
%
 
 
 
1

 
121,460

 
 
701 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
120,000

 
 
Annapolis Junction Building Six (50% ownership) (2)
 
Annapolis, MD
 
48.9
%
 
 
 
1

 
119,339

 
 
91 Hartwell Avenue
 
Lexington, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
119,216

 
 
Annapolis Junction Building One (50% ownership) (2)
 
Annapolis, MD
 
88.8
%
 
 
 
1

 
117,599

 
 
325 Main Street
 
Cambridge, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
115,361

 
 
201 Spring Street
 
Lexington, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
106,300

 
 
104 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
90.1
%
 
 
 
1

 
102,830

 
 
33 Hayden Avenue
 
Lexington, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
80,872

 
 
145 Broadway
 
Cambridge, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
79,616

 
 
105 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
62.7
%
 
 
 
1

 
69,955

 
 
32 Hartwell Avenue
 
Lexington, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
69,154

 
 
302 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
64,926

 
 
195 West Street
 
Waltham, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
63,500

 
 
100 Hayden Avenue
 
Lexington, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
55,924

 
 
181 Spring Street
 
Lexington, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
55,793

 
 
211 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
47,025

 
 
92 Hayden Avenue
 
Lexington, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
31,100

 
 
690 Folsom Street (5)
 
San Francisco, CA
 
55.2
%
 
 
 
1

 
26,080

 
 
201 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
100.0
%
 
 
 

 
6,500

 
 
Subtotal for Class A Office Properties
 
91.6
%
 
 
 
118

 
38,513,213

 
 
Retail
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Shops at the Prudential Center
 
Boston, MA
 
95.6
%
 
 
 
1

 
490,977

 
 
Fountain Square Retail
 
Reston, VA
 
97.2
%
 
 
 
1

 
237,209

 
 
Kingstowne Retail
 
Alexandria, VA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
88,288

 
 
Star Market at the Prudential Center
 
Boston, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
57,235

 
 
The Point (formerly 99 Third Avenue Retail)
 
Waltham, MA
 
84.7
%
 
 
 
1

 
16,300

 
 
Subtotal for Retail Properties
 
 
 
96.5
%
 
 
 
5

 
890,009

 
 
Office/Technical Properties
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mountain View Research Park
 
Mountain View, CA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
15

 
540,433

 
 
415 Main Street (6)
 
Cambridge, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
231,028

 
 
7601 Boston Boulevard
 
Springfield, VA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
114,028

 
 
7435 Boston Boulevard
 
Springfield, VA
 
67.1
%
 
 
 
1

 
103,557

 
 
8000 Grainger Court
 
Springfield, VA
 
37.6
%
 
 
 
1

 
88,775

 
 
7500 Boston Boulevard
 
Springfield, VA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
79,971

 
 
7501 Boston Boulevard
 
Springfield, VA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
75,756

 
 

32


Properties
 
Location
 
% Leased as of
December 31, 2015 (1)
 
 
 
Number
of
Buildings
 
Net
Rentable
Square Feet
 
 
250 Binney Street
 
Cambridge, MA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
67,362

 
 
164 Lexington Road
 
Billerica, MA
 
%
 
 
 
1

 
64,140

 
 
7450 Boston Boulevard
 
Springfield, VA
 
%
 
 
 
1

 
62,402

 
  
7374 Boston Boulevard
 
Springfield, VA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
57,321

 
  
8000 Corporate Court
 
Springfield, VA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
52,539

 
  
7451 Boston Boulevard
 
Springfield, VA
 
67.4
%
 
 
 
1

 
45,615

 
  
7300 Boston Boulevard
 
Springfield, VA
 
100.0
%
 
 
 
1

 
32,000

 
  
17 Hartwell Avenue
 
Lexington, MA
 
%
 
 
 
1

 
30,000

 
  
453 Ravendale Drive
 
Mountain View, CA
 
90.7
%
 
 
 
1

 
29,620

 
  
7375 Boston Boulevard
 
Springfield, VA
 
79.2
%
 
 
 
1

 
26,865

 
  
Subtotal for Office/Technical Properties
 
84.2
%
 
 
 
31

 
1,701,412

 
  
Residential Properties
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The Avant at Reston Town Center (359 units)
 
Reston, VA
 
93.9
%
 
(7) 
 
1

 
355,347

 
(8)
The Lofts at Atlantic Wharf (86 units)
 
Boston, MA
 
96.5
%
 
(7) 
 
1

 
87,097

 
(9)
Subtotal for Residential Properties
 
94.4
%
 
 
 
2

 
442,444

 
  
Hotel Property
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Boston Marriott Cambridge (433 rooms)
 
Cambridge, MA
 
80.8
%
 
(10) 
 
1

 
334,260

 
(11)
Subtotal for Hotel Property
 
 
 
80.8
%
 
 
 
1

 
334,260

 
  
Subtotal for In-Service Properties
 
91.4
%
 
 
 
157

 
41,881,338

 
  
Properties Under Construction (12)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Office and Retail
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
804 Carnegie Center
 
Princeton, NJ
 
100
%
 
 
 
1

 
130,000

 
 
1265 Main Street (50% ownership)
 
Waltham, MA
 
100
%
 
 
 
1

 
115,000

 
 
Prudential Center Retail Expansion
 
Boston, MA
 
100
%
 
 
 

 
15,000

 
 
601 Massachusetts Avenue (3)
 
Washington, DC
 
90
%
 
 
 
1

 
478,000

 
 
10 CityPoint
 
Waltham, MA
 
96
%
 
 
 
1

 
245,000

 
 
888 Boylston Street
 
Boston, MA
 
68
%
 
 
 
1

 
425,000

 
 
Salesforce Tower (95% ownership)
 
San Francisco, CA
 
59
%
 
 
 
1

 
1,400,000

 
 
The Hub on Causeway (50% ownership)
 
Boston, MA
 
33
%
 
 
 
1

 
385,000

 
 
Dock72 (50% ownership)
 
Brooklyn, NY
 
33
%
 
 
 
1

 
670,000

 
 
Residential
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cambridge Residential / 88 Ames (274 units)
 
Cambridge, MA
 
N/A

 
 
 
1

 
164,000

 
 
Reston Signature Site (508 units)
 
Reston, VA
 
N/A

 
 
 
1

 
514,000

 
 
Redevelopment
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Reservoir Place North
 
Waltham, MA
 
%
 
 
 
1

 
73,000

 
 
Subtotal for Properties Under Construction
 
60
%
 
(13)
 
11

 
4,614,000

 
  
Total Portfolio
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
168

 
46,495,338

 
  
_______________
(1)
Represents signed leases for in-service properties which revenue recognition has commenced in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (“GAAP”).
(2)
Property is an unconsolidated joint venture.
(3)
Including leases with future commencement dates, this property is 99% leased as of February 22, 2016.
(4)
Property held for redevelopment as of December 31, 2015, with the potential to develop a total of approximately 1.6 million square feet at this location.
(5)
Including leases with future commencement dates, this property is 100% leased as of February 22, 2016.
(6)
This property was sold on February 1, 2016 (See Note 20 to the Consolidated Financial Statements).

33


(7)
Note that these amounts are not included in the calculation of the Total Portfolio occupancy rate for In-Service Properties as of December 31, 2015.
(8)
Includes 26,179 square feet of retail space which is 100% leased as of December 31, 2015. Note that this amount is not included in the calculation of the Total Portfolio occupancy rate for In-Service Properties as of December 31, 2015.
(9)
Includes 9,617 square feet of retail space which is 100% leased as of December 31, 2015. Note that this amount is not included in the calculation of the Total Portfolio occupancy rate for In-Service Properties as of December 31, 2015.
(10)
Represents the weighted-average room occupancy for the year ended December 31, 2015. Note that this amount is not included in the calculation of the Total Portfolio occupancy rate for In-Service Properties as of December 31, 2015.
(11)
Includes 4,260 square feet of retail space which is 100% leased of December 31, 2015. Note that this amount is not included in the calculation of the Total Portfolio occupancy rate for In-Service Properties as of December 31, 2015.
(12)
Represents percentage leased as of February 22, 2016.
(13)
Includes approximately 33,000 square feet of retail space from residential developments which is 0% leased.
Percentage Leased and Average Annualized Revenue per Square Foot for In-Service Properties 
The following table sets forth our percentage leased and average annualized revenue per square foot on a historical basis for our In-Service Properties. 
 
 
December 31,
2015
 
December 31,
2014
 
December 31,
2013
 
December 31,
2012
 
December 31,
2011
Percentage leased (1)
 
91.4
%
 
91.7
%
 
93.4
%
 
91.4
%
 
91.3
%
Average annualized revenue per square foot (2)
 

$60.89

 

$58.97

 

$56.36

 

$55.43

 

$53.58

_______________
(1)
Represents signed leases, excluding hotel and residential properties, for which revenue recognition has commenced in accordance with GAAP.
(2)
Represents the monthly contractual base rents and recoveries from tenants under existing leases as of December 31, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011 multiplied by twelve. These annualized amounts are before rent abatements and include expense reimbursements, which may be estimates as of such date. The aggregate amount of rent abatements per square foot under existing leases as of December 31, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, and 2011 for the succeeding twelve month period is $0.60, $1.05, $0.58, $1.17 and $1.10 respectively.
Top 20 Tenants by Square Feet 
Our 20 largest tenants by square feet as of December 31, 2015 were as follows:
 
 
Tenant
 
Square Feet
 
 
 
% of In-Service Portfolio
1

 
U.S. Government
 
1,715,994

 
(1)
 
4.17
%
2

 
Citibank
 
984,692

 
(2)
 
2.39
%
3

 
Biogen
 
772,212

 
 
 
1.88
%
4

 
Bank of America
 
758,995

 
(3)
 
1.84
%
5

 
Wellington Management
 
680,566

 
(4)
 
1.65
%
6

 
Arnold & Porter
 
644,409

 
 
 
1.57
%
7

 
Kirkland & Ellis
 
621,652

 
(5)
 
1.51
%
8

 
Genentech
 
570,769

 
 
 
1.39
%
9

 
Ropes & Gray
 
528,931

 
 
 
1.29
%
10

 
O’Melveny & Myers
 
500,046

 
(6)
 
1.22
%
11

 
Weil Gotshal Manges
 
455,819

 
(7)
 
1.11
%
12

 
Shearman & Sterling
 
450,258

 
 
 
1.09
%
13

 
Microsoft
 
382,532

 
 
 
0.93
%
14

 
Google
 
368,711

 
 
 
0.90
%
15

 
Finnegan Henderson Farabow
 
362,405

 
(8)
 
0.88
%
16

 
Ann Inc. (fka Ann Taylor Corp.)
 
351,026

 
(9)
 
0.85
%
17

 
Morgan Lewis Bockius
 
339,914

 
 
 
0.83
%
18

 
PTC
 
320,655

 
 
 
0.78
%
19

 
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts
 
308,210

 
 
 
0.75
%
20

 
Mass Financial Services
 
301,668

 
 
 
0.73
%

34


__________________
(1)
Includes 1,980 and 232,103 square feet of space in properties in which we have a 51% and 50% interest, respectively.