Heath Fear
Thank you and good afternoon.
I'm pleased to report 2024 fourth-quarter and full-year results had outperformed the guidance we gave nearly a year ago.
KRG earned $0.53 of NAREIT FFO per share and $2.07 per share for the full year. During the quarter, same-property NOI grew by 4.8%, driven by a 440 basis points increase from minimum rev, a 30 basis points increase in net recoveries and 10 basis points of lower bad debt.
For the full year, same-property NOI growth was 3%, with primary contributors being higher minimum rent and net recoveries, offset by slightly higher bad debt compared to the historically low levels we experienced in 2023.
It's important to note that our 2024 year-end same-property result is 150 basis points higher than our original guidance. And over the past three years, our same-property growth has averaged 4.3%.
Before discussing our 2025 guidance, I wanted to highlight an incremental addition in our disclosure. On a go-forward basis, KRG will be reporting and guiding to both NAREIT and Core FFO.
Core FFO serves to eliminate some of the non-cash noise and focus the attention on our fundamental operating results. By way of example, as compared to full-year 2023, Core FFO grew 4.7% in 2024, which reflects the strength of our underlying business.
For 2025, we are establishing NAREIT FFO guidance of $2.02 to $2.08 per share and Core FFO guidance of $1.98 to $2.04 per share.
Included at the midpoint of our guidance are the following assumptions: same-property NOI growth of 1.75%; a full-year bad debt assumption of 85 basis points of total revenues; an additional disruption of 110 basis points of total revenues related to anchor bankruptcies; interest expense, net of interest income, of $122 million; and no impact from transactional activity.
It's equally important to highlight the more qualitative components of our guidance, which is the enduring commitment to responsibly set expectations based on things we can control, while maintaining a visible pathway to outperformance.
To assist in evaluating our 2025 guidance, I encourage all of you to review Page 5 of our investor deck, which bridges our 2024 NAREIT and Core FFO results to the midpoint of our 2025 guidance.
As John alluded to, the midpoint of our guidance assumes our strong operational gains are being partially offset by recent bankruptcies, which were acting as a 160 basis points drag on same-property NOI growth and a $0.04 drag on NAREIT and Core FFO.
These proceedings are unfolding real-time. So we felt it prudent to conservatively estimate that only 5 of the 29 impacted anchor boxes will be assumed by replacement tenants. This affords our team with flexibility to make long-term decisions around the best-replacement tenants and recapture the space if necessary.
Looking further down the income statement, certain year-over-year non-cash items are resulting in an additional $0.05 drag in NAREIT FFO per share. As we have previously disclosed, approximately $2.5 of this non-cash impact is due to merger-related debt marks, the impact of which significantly abate as we move into 2026. Despite all these challenges at the midpoint of our guidance, Core FFO per share is projected to grow in 2025.
The spread between our leased and occupied rate remains elevated at 240 basis points, representing $27 million of NOI. The cadence of this NOI coming on line is set forth on page 6 of our investor deck. We expect that, over the course of this year, the spread between leased and occupied will widen as we aggressively re-lease the approximately 200 basis points of occupancy being vacated as a result of the recent tenant bankruptcies.
We are fortunate to have the opportunity to address these vacancies in an environment where the inventory for high-quality anchor space is dwindling.
As John mentioned, we have wood to chop in 2025. But rest assured that the team is energized and fueled by a culture of outperformance.
Thank you to the entire KRG team for another incredible year. And we look forward to seeing many of you in the coming weeks.
Operator, this concludes our prepared remarks. Please open the line for your questions.
Operator
(Operator Instructions)
Todd Thomas, KeyBanc Capital Markets.
Todd Thomas
First question, John, you spent some time discussing acquisitions a little bit, you mentioned the balance sheet capacity with leverage at 4.7 times, the target being 5 times to 5.5 times. The market's been volatile, particularly with regard to equity capital costs over the last several months.
I understand there's no impact in guidance related to any transaction activity. But can you just provide an update and speak to your current thinking on new investments, today? And characterize the appetite for capital deployment today?
John Kite
Sure, Todd. Thank you.
I think, as we were trying to allude to, we certainly -- the markets ebb and flow but we look at acquisitions and we look at real estate, in general, in terms of what's our ability to make a difference with the asset, what's the long-term growth profile, and most importantly, how good is the real estate.
So those are the things that we're focused on. The volatility -- it comes and goes.
I think, bottom line, you saw that we just acquired a deal in South Florida, Publix-anchored center in West Palm Beach. And it ticked all those boxes. Fabulous real estate, a better growth profile than the overall portfolio that we currently have, upside opportunity in the rents.
So that's a situation where, because of our balance sheet, we can act on it. And we think that that's going to be a great asset for us.
Beyond that, I think, strategically, what we were laying out in the prepared remarks is we want to continue to pivot towards real estate that insulates us from what's happening, right now, to the extent that we can. And we can do it in an accretive manner or neutral manner.
If we can sell an asset that we think is overweighted into tenants that we view as long-term risks, then we would look to sell that and try to acquire something that isn't. So that's really the big picture, Todd.
And, again, you're correct in saying that the equity cost of that equation is volatile. And so we have to think through how we would capitalize these things. But we're looking to do it in an accretive way.
Todd Thomas
Okay.
And then, you talked about capital recycling and match funding acquisitions with dispositions. Should we expect to see acquisitions drive dispositions? Or would you consider selling assets first, ahead of anything you might look to acquire?
And then, secondly, just wondering if you could just provide an update on the sale of City Center in White Plains? And if there's any impact at all from that that is of embedded in the guidance that you can discuss?
John Kite
Let me think through the questions.
But in terms of the last question, City Center, let's start with that. It is on the market. We have been receiving offers that would validate where we marked the asset. I think we are anticipating that that would close this year.
And so the answer is yes. It is embedded in what we're thinking.
And then, what was the first two of those three questions?
Todd Thomas
Just in terms of the recycling, so --
John Kite
Oh, would we buy on the front-end? Yes.
That's market-driven, Todd. That's much more market-driven. I think we're trying to make the point that if we find something attractive, that we think has the right growth profile and the right real estate, we could act on that and buy the asset first and then dispose later.
So the answer is yes. We would do that.
And I think it's just market timing. And, as you know, sometimes we receive offers on assets that are off-market, that also is a possibility that we might move on some things like that.
But, again, I don't want to give the impression there's -- the bottom line is we're looking to control that, as much as we possibly can, and try to -- whatever we're doing -- trying to do it in an accretive manner.
Operator
(Operator Instructions)
Craig Mailman, Citi.
Craig Mailman
Maybe, just to follow up on Todd's question.
John, you alluded towards front-loading some of the acquisitions, potentially. Beyond the deal you just closed down in Florida, do you guys have anything that is close to coming across the finish line or visibility? Or was that just a 'we could do this if we wanted to because of the balance sheet'?
John Kite
No. Look, we're obviously indicating that we're very active in the market, like we always are. So we're engaged on underwriting assets.
We don't have anything that we're announcing, in terms of something that we're doing, after the last acquisition. But we're definitely actively underwriting.
And so the point is that -- with this kind of balance sheet, affords us that opportunity to do that and then come in later and look to pair that trade.
So that's our objective. But we also want to do it in an accretive way, with high-quality real estate.
So there's a lot of box to tick. But, yes, we're always actively looking and we'll update, as we move along.
Heath Fear
I think the point, Craig, is that we're at the higher end of our leverage, target range, we'd be reluctant to stretch ourselves out of acquisitions too far.
So by being at 4.7 times, you can get ahead of it, you can do an acquisition before you do dispositions. And if you get caught in a market where all of a sudden changes and can't get your dispositions done, you're using debt capital that is accretive to the transaction. And you can wait until the markets reopen and then, match fund it later.
So it just gives us so much more flexibility. Again, another one of the amazing things by having this balance sheet down to 4.7 times net debt-to-EBITDA.
John Kite
And I think the other thing to add to that, Craig, is, Heath mentioned the institutional investor interest in the open-air class. That's the other thing that's going on.
There's a lot of private institutional capital that is very interested in being in our business. So that also affords you a little more optionality when you're looking at things as well.
Craig Mailman
And I know there's been less positive outcomes on this from others who have tried it. But with where the stock is trading, today, and I know there's volatility around where the public markets trade, but, to the extent, you can sell assets inside of the implied cap that you, guys, are trading at -- I get that you want to focus on the future but at what point does share buybacks ever, the math there, become compelling, given the guaranteed return?
John Kite
Yes. Very fair comment and question.
It's always something that we're analyzing because whenever we're looking at deploying external capital, we have to judge it against that. It's always there in the backdrop.
I think, what we've said in the past is we were so focused on backfilling the vacancies that we had and getting the substantial returns on capital that we were getting in leasing, the frustrating part of this is that, as you saw over the last two quarters, that was really taking [heed] with our same-store NOI picking up rapidly, Core FFO growing and then, lo and behold, we get hit with this new round of bankruptcies, which we hope is near the end of those potential things that can happen.
So it's another thing that we have to deal with. That we are, now, looking at applying that capital that we could have otherwise deployed to a share repurchase to leasing up space.
And, by the way, getting 30% to 40% returns on capital so it's great. But, yes. Long answer but it's always something that we're going to underwrite when we think about deploying external capital.
Operator
(Operator Instructions)
Jeffrey Spector, Bank of America Securities.
Jeffrey Spector
John, I'd like to follow up on a couple of the points you mentioned.
You just said a comment around nearly the end of these [BKs] happening. I think that's what you're alluding to. You talked about owning real estate that insulates you from what's happening, right now.
And I think the concern, right, is that this is just part of the business. But it sounds like you're saying, I don't know, if you feel, like, by '26, do you feel that there's a certain percent of the portfolio that will be more insulated, based on the credit quality of the tenants today, right?
Because, again, there's just this concern that we walk into next year and there'll be another slate of retailers that file.
John Kite
Right. Yes. Great question, Jeff. And I appreciate it.
I think, yes, our view is that when you look at what's happened over the last couple of years, these bankruptcies have been occurring in a very strong environment for us to backfill them. So that's a real positive.
What we've voiced frustration on, in the past, is the fact that the struggling retailers, they tend to hang on and hang on and we're put in positions where we can't get access to the space when we want to.
And then, lo and behold, three or four of them -- like has happened in the last six months -- four or five of them file, all at the same time. And we were a little overweighted in that category. And that's something we're very focused on eliminating.
So you'll never fully eliminate credit issues in any business. But if you can insulate yourself against it and wait yourself down -- and what we mean by that is, obviously, if you look at the distribution of our type of properties, we're in the neighborhood grocery-anchored center business; we're in the community grocery-anchored center business; we're in the lifestyle business; and we're in, somewhat, of the power center business, and it's that last leg that we're looking to have less of.
Now, that being said, it generates consistent free cash flow that we can redeploy. So you have to do that within reason.
So I think what we're saying is we are looking to improve our portfolio, such that it insulates us against it. It will never completely eliminate it.
That being said, I do feel like when you look at what's happened in the last couple of years, the list is getting smaller, as it relates to those at-risk tenants because the ones that continue to survive are actually thriving.
And it's these old businesses that haven't reinvested in their own platforms, they go away. Most of that is -- it's not all gone, Jeff. But it feels like we're in a better spot.
Jeffrey Spector
Okay. That's really helpful, John.
And then, I have a follow-up for Heath, and I apologize, I couldn't hear it. Heath, at one point, you were talking about in the guidance, right, the conservatism, and so -- and I think you said something around, like, maybe out of the 29 replacements, you're only reflecting 5.
Can you repeat that and, maybe, discuss that a little bit more? Some of the conservatism, let's say, in the guidance? Some of the reach, like, where you can be towards the top end? And, maybe, that even includes shrinking the time it takes to backfill?
Heath Fear
Yes. Jeff, as you know, these bankruptcies are unfolding real-time. And so we're giving our best data we can and use AI to make assumptions.
And the assumptions we're making is that, basically, as you said, of the 29 [boxes] being impacted by these recent bankruptcies, we only have 5 of them being acquired.
One of them is a big loss, which we think is going to be an ongoing concern. And then four of them are our Party City locations.
I will tell you, for Party City, we had bids on a total of eight of them. Two of them were straight-up assumptions so those ones are going to be assumed. That's part of that five. And then, another six of them, the purchaser bought lease designation rights, which basically gives them the right to assume the lease but it really is an [entree] for them to call us and to negotiate a term change.
So we're assuming, maybe, of those six, another two of those end up into real deals. That gives us the five.
So, as you can tell, again, we still have to hear what's happening with [JoAnn] and their auction. So there's a version, Jeff, that there'll be more than five, which, I think, is an opportunity for us to outperform.
But, as John said, we want to make sure that the replacement tenant is someone that we're happy with, that's going to be accretive to the merchandising mix and has a good balance sheet. So there may be a version where, on some of these -- if someone is bidding -- even though we could take the short-term gain of no income disruption and just go ahead and help them assume and not put any capital onto it, we don't want to kick the can on the problem.
But just like the discussion you just had with John, we are actively looking for ways to reduce exposure to some of the names that cause us concern. And we can do that by a, trying to not renew them, recapturing space in these kinds of instances or perhaps selling assets that have an exposure to these tenants that have long duration on their terms. So it's a multi-faceted approach to try to reduce it.
But, again, you're right. Is that a conservative assumption? It is.
But, as I said in our remarks, when we give guidance, we try to set expectations, reasonably. The top end of our range are things that we have vision of and there are sources of outperformance and the bottom end of our range is really insurance against things that we can't see.
So that's how we approach it.
Thomas Mcgowan
And I think we'll have a little better clarity on [JoAnn's], probably, in April.
So between Party City coming through and being able to negotiate with [Reilly], who will be assigned to us? And then, coming up with [JoAnn], we'll have pretty good clarity, I think, in the next couple months.
John Kite
Jeff, you had a second part to your question about how long it takes to open tenants. And that's absolutely a major focus.
And when we look at that and we review opportunities with new tenants and we have this ability to push opening dates, we do that. And I think we're going to have to do a much better job of that, going forward.
That -- a lot of the things that take time to -- and would -- for example, if you're doing an anchor lease and the tenant is not going to open for 18 months, we just can't let that happen. We have to push it. And we have to make it happen faster.
So that is something that we're focused on and will be focused on.
And I just want to say, in regards to the guidance and more particularly the bad debt, obviously, when you look at the amount of bad debt reserve that we have, it's the start of the year -- we're going to be conservative in the start of the year -- if you look at what's happened with the company in the last several years, we've outperformed our initial expectations.
But you have to put yourself in a position to absorb the unknown. And until it becomes more known, then that's when we would update everybody.
But we feel very good that we're in a position to move quicker. But we want to make smart decisions around the merchandising mix.
I think we've given ourselves that ability to do that.
Operator
(Operator Instructions)
Floris Van Dijkum, Compass Point.
Floris van Dijkum
I had a follow-up question on capital recycling.
You have two big land parcels that are currently, as far as I'm aware, not yielding anything. Could you talk about the entitlements on those, one in Ontario, one in, I think, Largo, Maryland? And what the appetite would be for those two pieces of land, longer term?
John Kite
Yes. Floris, I think, as we said before, both of those are examples of parcels that we look to enhance the value vis-à-vis the entitlement process and then, highly likely that we would dispose of those to a third party to develop.
So in both of those cases, we are in that process and we have added significant value by vis-à-vis the entitlement process. I can't give you a timing. But, absolutely, there is real opportunity there.
And you are correct, they are creating no yield for us, at the current time. So it's all upside.
Thomas Mcgowan
But be assured the process of getting site-plan approvals and all the various regulatory items are well underway, on both.
Floris van Dijkum
And is it correct that something close to, like, 1,600 units could be built in Ontario?
John Kite
I don't think we have disclosed exactly what that is, yet, because we're in the process of that entitlement, that specific entitlement. But it's a large piece of ground. And there is real desire in that community for residential.
And, unfortunately, it became even more desirous, with the tragic events in L.A., in terms of housing. So, yes, that's ongoing. And that's why we think we're going to create a lot of value there, Floris.
Thomas Mcgowan
Yes. So the request for proposals really lay out what can be done on the property, in terms of capacity. And then, we're asking each of these potential buyers to come up with their plans. And then, from there, we'll review each and everyone and make decisions.
Floris van Dijkum
Great.
And then maybe my follow up, if I may, just talk about, again, the momentum that you have, right now, particularly on your shop occupancy as well, I think, 91.2%, where could you see that going later this year?
I know you've talked about seeing, maybe, a potential drop in physical occupancy, as you deal with some of this disruption impact. How does that impact your ability to lease and continue to grow your shop occupancy?
John Kite
Yes. We don't think this is going to impact our ability to do that, at all.
Generally speaking, these retailers, that are going away, were not additive, quite frankly, to the centers themselves. If anything, it's a lot of upside there.
And our shop occupancy is growing. As you know, pre-COVID was 92.5%, now, it's 91%, meaning that we have a lot of opportunity.
Now, we've also been very, very diligent around doing the right deals, getting better growth. And that's why we pointed out the 70% of the deals that we did, that's a big number, 70%; in the shop space, we're at 4% [bumps] or better.
Over time, that generates more cash flow that is very meaningful. So I don't think, at all, that the bankruptcies will impair our ability to do that. And, if anything, the replacement tenants that we bring in will actually add to our ability to lease the shop space.
Operator
(Operator Instructions)
Paulina Rojas-Schmidt, Green Street.
Paulina Rojas Schmidt
Retailers often have expansion options, right? Do you think it's possible for landlords, given how good the leasing environment is, to start thinking about negotiating these lease clauses where they can have recapture rights if a tenant's health falls behind a certain predetermined level?
It seems to me that the tenants that are currently in bankruptcy have been struggling for such a long time and that you would have benefited from gradually recapturing the space.
John Kite
Yes. Paulina, it's a good question. And, quite candidly, we already have situations in our best properties where in the option periods, if the tenant isn't doing the predetermined amount of sales that we determine as successful in that particular lease, then that option goes away. So there are -- in the best centers, we do have that.
During the primary term, it would obviously be very difficult to do that, based on the amount of capital that our partners put into their own spaces or the retailers. So I think that the bigger picture is the strength of the business is fundamentally better than it was despite these setbacks that you have for periods of time, the strength is still there.
So we are very focused on what we said in the remarks, which is to make these more flexible. Particularly, like, around exclusive uses -- things of that nature -- co-tenancy provisions. We need these leases to be more flexible that would inure our ability to make moves quicker.
So I think it's all part of the same bucket. And, look, this is a unique relationship between the landlord and the retailer. It is a customer-partner relationship. We value these relationships. They're very important to us.
And as we grow and own better assets, those relationships become stronger. So I do think we will get there and we will make those improvements and, to some degree, they already exist.
Paulina Rojas Schmidt
Okay.
And then, I'm thinking about your assumption of 5 of the 29 leases being assumed. I get it, that you have to be prudent and conservative but I'm thinking, given that these leases are so materially below market, why wouldn't a large share of them be assumed? What is deterring a more successful pool of [leaders] for these leases?
John Kite
I don't think anything is deterring that. And I think we are clear that five is a conservative estimate.
And Heath pointed out that we actually had another four that a particular retailer, essentially, bid on the rights to the lease, even though there were no options there.
And so what we're saying is we want the opportunity to make the decision that we want that tenant, before we just put that tenant in a space because it looks good on a quarterly-run-rate basis versus a long-term value basis.
So I think what we're trying to make sure our investors understand is we want to create long-term value, not short-term value. And we understand that it creates difficulty sometimes. But I would be quite surprised if the number wasn't higher than five.
But we want to do it in a diligent way. Make the decisions and make sure we're putting the best retailers in there.
Thomas Mcgowan
And, Paulina, from an overall interest level and who we're talking to and who we're exchanging letter of intents with, that doesn't include that list. It's just the list of the four that John talked about.
But another example would be on a deal that someone has a designation right. On a Party City deal, we have a location next to it that we could combine spaces, do a grocery.
So we want to be really thoughtful on each and every one of these to make sure we get the right one. And I think we've laid this out properly to give us maximum flexibility.
Paulina Rojas Schmidt
That makes sense.
One last one. When you think about the anchor boxes on the different size ranges, let's say, 10,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet; 20,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet; and then, over 30,000 square feet, what bucket is the most challenging to backfill, today?
John Kite
Well, generally speaking, the larger you go, the more challenging it gets. But not in the sizes that you described.
It's really once you get north of 40,000 square feet, it becomes more complicated. And if you think all the way back to the old Sports Authority bankruptcy, years ago, that's an example of boxes that were larger that took longer to backfill.
Now, in this particular round, it's actually much more attractive, particularly Party City, because these are less than 20,000 square feet. So they tend to be not as deep as some of these other larger boxes, which gives us much greater optionality on carving them up and, maybe, even doing, say, a 6,000-foot tenant and some small shops, which would have better growth.
But it also makes it attractive, as you pointed out, to tenants that want to just assume the leases. So, I think, again, we're being prudently conservative but we're looking to try to outperform.
Thomas Mcgowan
And [JoAnn] is a big loss, size-wise, as you're looking in those strong categories of the 20s to the 30s, just gives you a lot of flexibility with the value players, grocery, and all the other people that are looking at it.
So we're very fortunate that we have the range of the 10s, the 20s, and some 30s that gives us max flexibility.
Operator
(Operator Instructions)
Alexander Goldfarb, Piper Sandler.
Alexander Goldfarb
So two questions.
First, John, you're a straight shooter, you like to call it as it is, and like to focus on cash flow and the dividend and not make excuses. So I'm just curious, the decision to go with a Core FFO -- NAREIT FFO has worked, we know that, but it is what it is -- it's a level playing field - just curious why introduced Core?
You, guys, have spent a lot of focus talking about dividend, talking about bottom line cash flow growth. So I'm just curious why the Core?
John Kite
Sure. I appreciate the preamble of being straight shooter.
So, quite honestly, we aren't replacing NAREIT with Core, we're adding Core. So we'll be guiding to NAREIT and Core.
And, I think, Alex, you mentioned about our focus on cash flow. Core is cash flow, right? Core is much more cash-driven. So it's just something that -- by the way, others do it as well -- but, for us, we just want to make sure that the investors can see as much as possible with -- in terms of -- and it's why it's called Core, in terms of the core operation of the business. And it's up to investors to judge whether they want to be looking more to NAREIT or looking more to Core.
We're just putting it out there as another metric to follow. And to give you an example, if you just look at where we were headed in the year and you look at what happened in the last couple of years, Core has been growing nicely.
And you obviously have had to deal with a lot of non-cash accounting associated with the previous merger so we're not trying to replace it, Alex. It's just an addition.
Alexander Goldfarb
Right.
But to be fair, John, when you, guys, did the merger, like, you know the accounting. So that's -- and I get it that the accounting is wonky. I'm not debating that but it's -- anyway.
John Kite
I guess we've been thinking about it and we're starting it, now. But we're certainly not moving away from NAREIT FFO.
Alexander Goldfarb
Okay.
Second question is just -- a lot of the questions on the bankruptcies and the impact, especially more so for you, guys, than some of the other peers. But I guess the question is, do you -- yes, there's an outsized hit versus the other companies from these four or five group of tenants -- but is your sense that there's a bigger watch list?
Like, there were comments about there are other tenants to work through to improve the credit quality of the portfolio. So I'm just curious, are there other tenants that you, guys, are focused on to eradicate from the portfolio? Or is it really just bad luck of cards -- you got a bunch of these tenants back and this is all you're dealing with and that's where those credit comments were focused on?
John Kite
Yes. I think it's more of the former. And I don't know that we necessarily got a bunch more back. I think we were just more conservative in what we assumed, in terms of the leases that would be assumed.
I think that's the -- if you just look at the bad debt that we laid out there versus some others, I think that's the difference.
Yes. And it's more -- what we're trying to say, Alex, as we continue to improve the portfolio, improve the quality of the real estate, and improve the distribution of the types of shopping centers we own amongst the different genres, yes, we're looking to have less box exposure. We're not looking to have zero box exposure.
So that's all we were trying to say.
Operator
(Operator Instructions)
Michael Mueller, J.P. Morgan.
Michael Mueller
First, what is the pool size for the potential dispositions that you flagged when you were talking about the single-tenant assets in the lower-growth markets? If you roll them all up, about how big is that pool?
John Kite
We haven't laid that out, in terms of the total size of it. I mean, we've always said that when you look at the total portfolio, there's probably -- and this is just a swag number -- there's generally 10% of that portfolio that you think, geez, I'd like to reposition these assets.
But we also think about that, in terms of we want to do it in a thoughtful way that is, as we said, accretive or, at least, neutral. So that makes that a challenge.
But I don't think -- we're not going to look at it like that, right at this very moment, Mike. We're thinking more along the lines of one-at-a-time.
Now, in terms of the single-state markets, I think there's probably three or four of the -- six of those, sorry, where we have one asset in a state. So that's probably where you start. And then, we have a couple of these lower-growth profile assets that we would add to that.
Michael Mueller
Got it. Okay.
And then, I think you said in the comments that about 70% of those shop leases that you signed, I think this was in the fourth quarter, had bumps that were 4% or higher. And I'm just curious, what types of tenants are signing leases that have bumps greater than 4%?
John Kite
First of all, the 70% was for the full year. And, generally speaking, first of all, obviously, we're talking about small shop tenants. And it depends, really, on the property. But there are definitely tenants that we've signed that are, like, 4.5% growth, there's obviously not a lot of 5%s.
The growth, obviously, adds up over time. So we're cautious around what these tenants' health ratios would be. But high-volume restaurants, service players -- guys like that -- sometimes, the larger franchise operators.
And, again, it's really property-specific. A lot of these properties don't have a lot of vacancy. So when there's a shop that comes up in a really strong property, we have two, three, four people looking to get the space.
So it's competitive to drive some of that too.
Operator
(Operator Instructions)
Linda Tsai, Jefferies.
Linda Tsai
Of the five Party Cities where a retailer has lease designation rights, in terms of the range of outcomes, what would you consider a favorable outcome versus a less favorable one?
Thomas Mcgowan
Do you want to --
John Kite
Tom, why don't you hit that?
Thomas Mcgowan
Yes. Here's what I would say. One of them relates to a term that is very minimal, say, six months. So, [Reilley], one of their advisers will come to us and try to negotiate that.
So what we'll do in that situation, most likely is, say, if we can do better with a new tenant and expand and get the quality up to where we want to be, then we would not take that deal, we would not negotiate.
Another scenario where it may be a less attractive space in the center around the elbow, that could be a situation where we say, hey, this is likely a good deal. We keep the run stream on. We do not have to put in capital.
So each decision will be done on its own accord. But we have a pretty good strategy in place for the designated stores.
And then, we plan to implement those. But it's pretty clear-and-dry in terms of our direction on each one.
John Kite
Linda, I think if you heard Heath's comments, the other factor that we're focused on is, let's say, a particular retailer designated for eight spaces, do we really want to do a deal with any retailer and automatically grow that by eight spaces? And these are junior anchor or anchor spaces.
So we wanted to be able to slow the process (inaudible) to take them one at a time. And I think, maybe, others are taking a different approach, just fill the space as fast as possible. But -- so I think merchandising mix is just as important -- and frankly, more important than the speed at which you backfill that space.
Thomas Mcgowan
Absolutely.
Linda Tsai
And then, in terms of being active on the transaction front, who are you competing with, primarily, on the assets you're looking to buy?
John Kite
Linda, it's a very deep pool. And it's one of the things that we mentioned in the pre-prepared remarks -- was that the amount of capital that is queued up has, like, for example, dry powder, looking to deploy into open-air retail, really grown.
I can't give you the exact metric. But it feels like two or threefold, in the last couple of years.
So when you're looking at a high-quality asset, you're competing against pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds, REITs, 1031 buyers, local sharpshooters that have, maybe, one of those as a capital partner. So it's quite extensive.
And that's good. I mean it's good that, I think, we've crossed the rubicon of do people want to be in retail? Yes. They want to be in retail. I mean this is a good business.
Yes, it has its hiccups. Yes, we're frustrated that we got put in this position, after turning the corner with really strong growth. But that growth is coming back and it's going to come back even stronger as we redeploy the capital.
Operator
(Operator Instructions)
Alec Feygin, Baird.
Alec Feygin
Thinking through the overall vacancies, especially on the anchor side, have you been selecting and in contact with potential tenants that you would want to bring into the centers to improve overall traffic or merchandising mix?
Thomas Mcgowan
Yes. Absolutely. We spend time targeting these customers. We get in front of them and spend a lot of time on that, as it relates, ultimately, back to our leasing strategy for each center.
So that's a big part of what we do each and every day.
Alec Feygin
And would you be able to talk about the type of tenants that you're seeing demand, that you would want to target?
Thomas Mcgowan
Yes. I think if you take a look at our list, grocery has always been a primary driver for us due to the traffic generation. And we have the ability to not just take one space but, potentially, expand into others.
We have the Nordstrom Racks. We have the value players of Homesense, the TJs. Have some great fitness, Boutique Fitness. Furniture, are both high end, mid-range.
But we really aren't short on any tenants, in terms of our ability to attract.
But if you take a look at page 19 in our investor package, you can just see an extremely strong group of tenants that we've done as new offerings, Whole Foods, Homesense, Trader Joe's, it goes on and on.
So we have quite a stable to pick from.
John Kite
I think most important metric, though, that we gave you, was, I think we did 22 anchor deals, 19 different tenants, in 2024. That gives you -- that just sums up what Tom was saying in a nutshell, tons of depth.
Operator
Thank you. This concludes the Q&A for today. I will now turn it over to John Kite for closing remarks.
John Kite
Great. And, again, I want to thank everybody for taking the time to be with us this morning.
And I want to thank our team. And we look forward to the challenges ahead. And look forward to continuing to do what we do.
Thank you.
Operator
Thank you for your participation in today's conference.
This does conclude the program.
You may now disconnect.
Everyone, have a great day.
