CubeSmart (CUBE) Q4 2025 Earnings Call Transcript

Image source: The Motley Fool.

DATE

Friday, Feb. 27, 2026 at 11 a.m. ET

CALL PARTICIPANTS

• President and Chief Executive Officer — Christopher P. Marr
• Chief Financial Officer — Timothy M. Martin
• Senior Vice President of Finance — Joshua Schutzer

TAKEAWAYS

• Same-Store Revenue Growth -- Declined 0.1% in the fourth quarter, showing sequential improvement from the third quarter.
• Same-Store Expenses -- Increased 2.9% in the fourth quarter due to higher marketing, R&M, and personnel costs, while real estate taxes and property insurance costs moderated.
• Same-Store NOI -- Fell 1.1% for the quarter, reflecting higher expense growth relative to revenue trends.
• FFO per Share (Adjusted) -- Reported at $0.64 for the quarter as disclosed in financial supplements.
• Dividend -- Quarterly dividend increased by 1.9% to an annualized $2.12 per share, representing a 5.3% yield on the previous day's close.
• Share Repurchase Program -- Authorization expanded to $475 million; company generates about $100 million of free cash flow annually, supporting leverage-neutral buybacks.
• External Investments -- Closed two on-balance-sheet acquisitions totaling $49 million and formed a joint venture with CBRE Investment Management with a $250 million investment mandate in high-growth markets.
• Capital Structure -- Ended the year at 4.8x net debt to EBITDA; Board may access the bond market in the first half of the year to repay revolver borrowings and address bond maturities in September.
• Same-Store Supply Impact -- 19% of the same-store portfolio projected to face new supply competition in 2026, down from 24% last year and the 50% peak in 2019.
• Move-In Rates -- Year over year move-in rates turned positive at +2.5% and +2.8% in the most recent quarters, with sustained improvement continuing into early 2026.
• FFO per Share Guidance -- 2026 full-year expectation set at $2.52 to $2.60 per share, incorporating lessening supply headwinds and stable macro assumptions.
• Occupancy Trend -- Ended January at 88.7%, narrowing the year-over-year gap to 40 basis points below January 2025 levels.
• Expense Outlook -- Expense growth pressured by higher real estate taxes, notable weather-related costs from recent winter storms, and a shift to inflationary personnel cost growth.
• Joint Venture Focus -- The CBRE joint venture will target a broad range of asset types, including core, core-plus, and value-add properties in geographically diverse, high-growth markets.
• Disposition and Asset Rotation -- Management is willing to consider selling or contributing assets to joint ventures for share repurchases if valuation disconnects persist.
• Regional Performance -- Core urban markets in the Northeast and Midwest continue to outperform, with over 75% of the top 25 markets accelerating revenue growth from the third quarter.
• New York MSA -- Experienced revenue outperformance and stable occupancy in all boroughs, with Brooklyn maintaining quarter over quarter same-store revenue growth above 5%.
• Operational Flexibility -- Platform allows daily optimization between rate and occupancy to maximize revenue as market conditions evolve.
• Fee Income Drivers -- Growth in the 'other property income' line was attributed to merchandise, truck rentals, and various fees, with management expecting continuation of these gains into 2026.

Need a quote from a Motley Fool analyst? Email pr@fool.com

RISKS

• Timothy M. Martin said, "the biggest impact is going to come from the winter-related costs from the storms over recent weeks," highlighting significantly higher weather-related expense growth in early 2026.
• Expense guidance is pressured by real estate tax increases, particularly given favorable comps late in 2025, which are expected to reverse later in 2026.

SUMMARY

CubeSmart (NYSE:CUBE) reported sequential improvement in key operating and financial metrics, with move-in rates turning positive and core urban markets driving portfolio acceleration. The company completed $49 million in acquisitions and expanded its investment reach through a $250 million joint venture with CBRE Investment Management, aiming to diversify geographically and by asset class. CubeSmart maintains a strong credit profile with flexible access to capital, an expanded $475 million share repurchase capacity, and willingness to rotate assets or deploy capital to optimize shareholder value amid ongoing valuation disconnects.

• The full-year FFO per share guidance for 2026 embeds a lower supply headwind, with only 19% of the same-store portfolio facing new competitive deliveries, a multi-year low.
• Dividend growth and a leverage-neutral buyback program are underpinned by approximately $100 million in annual free cash flow, and favorable net debt to EBITDA of 4.8x.
• Expense growth in 2026 is expected to rise above recent multi-year sector lows due to weather, real estate taxes, and normalization in personnel costs after extended restraint.
• Management indicated continued revenue and NOI recovery will be gradual, as only about 5% of cubes typically turn over monthly, implying a steady but measured path back to historical growth levels.
• CubeSmart is prepared for various capital deployment options, including further acquisitions, dispositions, joint venture contributions, and additional share repurchases, contingent on market conditions and public-private valuation spreads.

INDUSTRY GLOSSARY

• NOI (Net Operating Income): Property-level operating income after operating expenses and before interest and depreciation.
• FFO (Funds From Operations): REIT-specific earnings metric adjusting net income for property sales, depreciation, and amortization.
• Same-Store: Properties held and operated throughout the full periods being compared, isolating organic growth trends.
• Joint Venture (JV): Partnership between two or more entities sharing ownership, management, and returns on a pool of real estate assets.
• Net Debt to EBITDA: Measure of leverage calculated as net financial debt divided by earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization.
• MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area): A region that comprises a city and its surrounding suburbs and exurbs, often used for real estate performance benchmarking.

Full Conference Call Transcript

Operator: My name is Jordan, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to CubeSmart’s fourth quarter 2025 earnings call. All lines have been placed on mute and there will be a question-and-answer session. If you would like to ask a question during this time, please press star followed by the number one on your telephone keypad. If you would like to withdraw your question, please press star one again. Thank you. I would now like to turn the call over to Joshua Schutzer, Senior Vice President of Finance. Please go ahead.

Joshua Schutzer: Thank you, Jordan. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to CubeSmart’s fourth quarter 2025 earnings call. Participants on today’s call include Christopher P. Marr, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Timothy M. Martin, Chief Financial Officer. Our prepared remarks will be followed by a Q&A session. In addition to our earnings release, which was issued yesterday evening, supplemental operating and financial data is available under the Investor Relations section of the company’s website at www.cubesmart.com. The company’s remarks will include certain forward-looking statements regarding earnings and strategy that involve risks, uncertainties, and other factors that may cause the actual results to differ materially from these forward-looking statements.

The risks and factors that could cause our actual results to differ materially from forward-looking statements are provided in documents the company furnishes to, or files with, the Securities and Exchange Commission, specifically the Form 8-K we filed this morning together with our earnings release filed with the Form 8-K and the Risk Factors section of the company’s Annual Report on Form 10-Ks. In addition, the company’s remarks include references to non-GAAP measures. A reconciliation between GAAP and non-GAAP measures can be found in the fourth quarter financial supplement posted on the company’s website at www.cubesmart.com. I will now turn the call over to Christopher P. Marr.

Christopher P. Marr: Morning, and thank you for joining us today. We are encouraged heading into 2026 that fundamentals have stabilized and we are positioned to return to growth. Operating metrics have seen improvement over the last couple of quarters, and now that is beginning to flow through to financial metrics. Our more stable urban markets in the Northeast and Midwest continue to outperform while our more transient supply-impacted markets across the Sunbelt and the West Coast are beginning to see green shoots in the form of second derivative improvement. Across all our markets, our existing customer metrics remain strong, with no change to attrition rates or credit. 2025 was a year of stabilization for demand trends.

Overall, demand patterns were more consistent throughout the year, and the environment has been more constructive, leading to move-in rates in the back half of the year moving positive year over year. The trend in move-in rates has been very encouraging, with year-over-year quarterly growth improving from minus 10% in the 2020, improving to minus 8.3% in the 2025, improving again to minus 4% in the second quarter of last year, continuing to improve and turning positive at plus 2.5% in the 2025 and increasing that positive momentum at plus 2.8% in the 2025. In the 2026, we have seen similar trends with the occupancy gap continuing to narrow with positive move-in rates.

Specifically, the occupancy gap at January improved from year-end when it was down 70 basis points to end January at 88.7%, 40 basis points below January 2025, with rental and vacate trends consistent with our experience during 2020. With a few days left here in February, overall trends continue to be encouraging, with the occupancy gap continuing to narrow and the quarter-to-date move-in rate trend continuing to be positive, with year-over-year move-in rates growing generally in line with what we reported with fourth quarter results. Improvement in operating fundamentals is beginning to show up in the financial results. It will be steady, gradual improvement as we typically turn over approximately 5% of our cubes in any given month.

We started to see that momentum play through in the fourth quarter and would expect that gradual improvement to continue through 2026. Demand does vary across markets and submarkets, with continued outperformance from core urban markets in the Northeast and Midwest and more supply-impacted markets through the Sunbelt and Southwest. However, we saw improvements in fundamentals across many markets, with over 75% of our top 25 markets seeing revenue growth accelerate from the third quarter to the 2025. As trends in our markets have been quite positive over the last four or five months, I am optimistic that we are inflecting and see a path to return to more historical levels of revenue and net operating income growth.

In 2026, only 19% of our same stores are projected to face an impact of new supply, the lowest percentage since we began articulating this back in 2017. The magnitude of the impact of this competitive supply continues to lessen as more of the deliveries in that three-year rolling impact are from two or three years ago, and those stores are beginning to reach their first level of occupancy stabilization.

Our highest-quality portfolio and best-in-class operating platform, along with a seasoned management team with senior leadership having multiple decades of experience across cycles, against the backdrop of declining impact of new supply and more constructive operating fundamentals, has us well positioned to take on any challenges and maximize all opportunities through 2026. Now I would like to turn it over to Timothy M. Martin for insight on our thoughts on capital allocation and guidance for 2026.

Timothy M. Martin: Thanks, Chris. Good morning, everyone. Thanks for taking a few minutes out of your day and spending it with us. I will provide a quick review of fourth quarter results, discuss our recent investment activity, and then jump in with some additional color on our 2026 expectations and guidance. Same-store revenue growth accelerated from the third quarter to just shy of flat at negative 0.1% for the quarter, reflecting the continued stabilization of trends that Chris touched on and moving us to an improved starting point for 2026.

Same-store expenses grew 2.9% during the fourth quarter, helped by some good news in real estate taxes and property insurance, offset by increases in marketing and R&M spend, which are mostly timing-related as compared to spend in those areas last year. Same-store then resulted in NOI declining 1.1% for the fourth quarter. We reported FFO per share, as adjusted, of $0.64 for the quarter. And during the quarter, we announced a 1.9% increase in our quarterly dividend, up to an annualized $2.12 per share. On yesterday’s close, that represents a 5.3% dividend yield. On the external growth front, it has been a challenging couple of years to find accretive on-balance-sheet opportunities to deploy capital, especially on marketed transactions.

We had success with structured transactions in late 2024 and then early into 2025 when we were able to accretively invest a combined $610 million on a pair of transactions. One was a recap and one was a JV buyout. Since then, we have seen very limited opportunity to invest on balance sheet given the disconnect in public and private market valuations, but we have been focused on other creative avenues for capital deployment. We recently announced a new joint venture with CBRE Investment Management, with a $250 million mandate to invest in high-growth markets. This allows us to expand our JV relationships and provides another avenue to continue to grow the portfolio with enhanced returns.

We also closed on two on-balance-sheet acquisitions for $49 million during the quarter. In the fourth quarter, we also executed on our existing share repurchase program as the relative value for our portfolio made it a very attractive investment option. When considering we own the highest-quality portfolio of self storage assets, and combining that with the disconnected valuation reflected in our share price during the fourth quarter, repurchasing shares was compelling for us on a risk-adjusted basis compared to private market values for lower-quality assets. Our Board has recently expanded the share repurchase authorization, giving us approximately $475 million in capacity to repurchase shares based on current valuation levels.

We generate approximately $100 million in free cash flow annually, so we could execute under the share repurchase program on a leverage-neutral basis up to those levels. We are also looking at potentially selling some assets or contributing assets to a joint venture and using those proceeds to fund additional share repurchases should the public-private valuation gap persist further into 2026. Our balance sheet is in great shape with credit metrics very favorable to our existing investment-grade credit ratings. Leverage ended the year at 4.8x net debt to EBITDA. We do have a few things on the to-do list for 2026.

We may look at opportunistically accessing the bond market in the first half of the year and use proceeds to repay amounts currently drawn on our revolver, and then in the back half of the year, we may look to go again and use the proceeds to repay our existing bonds that mature in September. Looking forward, details of our 2026 earnings guidance and related assumptions were included in our release last night. Overall, our FFO per share expectation for 2026 is a range of $2.52 to $2.60 per share. For same-store guidance, our 2026 same-store pool increased by 16 stores.

The midpoint of our guidance range for same-store revenues assumes a generally similar macro environment to last year, a lessening impact from competing new supply in our markets, a continuation of steadily improving competitive pricing, and a narrowing of our year-over-year occupancy gap as the year progresses. On the impact of supply, embedded in our same-store expectations for 2026 is the impact of new supply that will compete with approximately 19% of our same-store portfolio, as Chris touched on. For context, that 19% is down from 24% of stores impacted by supply last year and down from the peak of 50% of stores impacted back at peak in 2019. We have been keenly focused on expense controls for several years.

In fact, we have led the sector with the lowest expense growth over the last three-year, four-year, five-year, and six-year periods. So a bit of our growth overall in 2026 is in the context of us setting a really challenging comp for ourselves given our expense controls over the past several years.

Areas that are pushing up our expectation for year-over-year growth include real estate taxes, especially late in the year as some of the good news in late 2025 creates a tough comp for us late in 2026; personnel costs, coming off again a multiyear period of very, very low growth; and, of course, the biggest impact is going to come from the winter-related costs from the storms over recent weeks. Pretty impactful storms compared to really not much at all in early 2025 from weather events. Thanks again for joining us on the call this morning. At this time, Jordan, why do you not open up the call for some questions?

Operator: As a reminder, if you would like to ask a question, press star. Your first question comes from the line of Michael Goldsmith from UBS. Your line is live.

Michael Goldsmith: Good morning. Thanks a lot for taking my question. Maybe first, can we just start with supply? It seems like supply is coming down or at least new deliveries are. But I guess, at the same time, the demand environment has remained kind of stable, but not particularly strong. So how do you think about supply? Is it just kind of new deliveries? Is it the cumulative buildup over the last several years that is influencing it? And then the numbers that you quote, is that a number of expected deliveries this year or is that kind of like a multiyear number? Thanks.

Timothy M. Martin: Thanks, Michael. Good morning. So the numbers that I quoted of the 19% of stores being impacted, what we have consistently disclosed over time is we look at supply and the impact of supply on our existing stores over a three-year rolling period. So for the 19% of our stores that are impacted by supply in 2026, those are stores that within their trade ring are going to compete against something that is delivered in 2024, 2025, or 2026.

And as Chris touched on, the stores that were delivered in 2024 are going to be less impactful from a headwind perspective than stores in 2026 because they will be in the third year, they will be starting to approach higher levels of occupancy and tend to start pricing more competitively within the market. So it is not only the 19%, it is kind of the nature of the 19%. It is going to be a little bit less of a headwind, we believe, certainly than when we were at the peak back in 2019. So it is a combination of those things, but all the numbers that we quote are on a three-year rolling basis.

Michael Goldsmith: Got it. Thank you. Thanks for that. And as a follow-up, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker filed a lawsuit over predatory practices in the New York market. I just wanted to get your take on it. You have a large presence there. Have that influenced the way that you operate? And then, obviously, this is the lawsuit against you guys, but just kind of how you are reacting to it.

Timothy M. Martin: Yes, Michael, we are certainly aware of recent announcements, that specific one out of New York. There have been some similar attempts at legislation in other states around not only for storage, but just in general pricing and transparency. We continue to monitor those and make sure we are in compliance. We are always focused on providing our customers with the optimum experience and will continue to be flexible in terms of focusing in on that and doing that to the best of our ability.

Michael Goldsmith: Thank you very much. Good luck in 2026.

Timothy M. Martin: Thanks.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Viktor Fediv from Scotiabank. Your line is live.

Viktor Fediv: Thank you for taking my question. I have a question regarding your operating expenses outlook for this year. It is a bit higher versus, for example, your peers. I am just trying to understand what are the key pieces impacting that difference. Probably New York, I see that in 2025 had probably a bit higher operating expenses growth. So can you provide some color on what is driving that?

Timothy M. Martin: Yes. As we touched on in the introductory remarks, you have a couple things going on. You have, again, having led the sector in expense controls and expense growth over the past several years, we do believe we have created a pretty high bar for ourselves from the standpoint of a baseline from which to compare. I think then the individual drivers of where we are getting a little bit of pressure, again, mentioned, were on real estate taxes. In particular, in the later part of 2026, we are going to have some tough comps because we had some good news here in 2025. And then the big one that I mentioned is the weather-related.

We are going to have pretty significant year-over-year growth in weather-related expenses in the first quarter as we have a significant portion of our self storage portfolio in the Northeast states. And frankly, the winter storms were impactful far beyond just the Northeastern part of the country. So real estate taxes and weather-related costs are the big ones. And then even on the line like personnel, we have been able to manage personnel at flat to negative growth over a multiyear period of time. This year, we are looking at more inflationary or maybe just a little bit north of inflationary type growth in that line item.

So those are the areas that are driving the thought process behind our same-store expense guidance.

Viktor Fediv: Understood. And then as a follow-up, if you think about this new re-formed JV, this CBRE, what is actually your opportunity set, and what should we think about what is achievable for benefit in 2026 in terms of incremental investments there?

Timothy M. Martin: Yes. So we are super excited to expand our JV relationship, and now we have what we had disclosed with our new venture with CBRE Investment Management. We have been working together with them for several years on the operational side and have established a great working relationship through our third-party management platform. The venture that we announced is focused on investing across the spectrum of core, core-plus, value-add opportunities, and ideally, that will result in us being able to assemble a portfolio of geographically diversified assets in high-growth markets.

So fairly broad mandate, and the $250 million mandate is hopefully number one, and then, if we are successful there, we can move on and create additional venture opportunities with CBRE and then, of course, continue to look at creating additional joint venture opportunities with others, including some longstanding relationships that we have.

Viktor Fediv: Thank you.

Timothy M. Martin: Thank you.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Brad Heffern from RBC. Your line is live.

Brad Heffern: Hey. Good morning. Thanks, everybody. Can you talk about the assumption for move-in rates during the year? Are they just sort of steady during the year at the levels we see now? Do they decline as comps get more difficult? Maybe do they go up because of supply?

Timothy M. Martin: Yes. So we do not guide to the specific components. We guide to an overall revenue growth range expectation. I think what we have seen is what Chris touched on a little bit, which is we have seen a more constructive environment for pricing to new customers. So we flipped to positive, and it is a good place to start the year. And then, as I touched on, at least on the baseline of our expectations would be an environment where we are able to steadily close the occupancy gap throughout the year. That would be at the baseline of our expectation.

The reality is busy season is going to come, and market conditions are going to be what they are going to be, and our systems are designed to maximize revenue. And so could you get a little bit more rate, a little bit less occupancy, a little more occupancy, a little bit less rate? Could you move towards the higher end of the range, the lower end of the range? We will see. But overall, we just guide to the overall number which you see in our release.

Brad Heffern: Okay. Got it. And then, sort of sticking with that, you said in the prepared comments you see a path back to historical growth levels. If we see move-in rates stay flat around where they are now, call it 3%, when should we see same-store revenue get to 3%? I know there is a huge number of moving pieces, but just wondering generally, is it quarters? Is it a year? Is it two years, etcetera?

Timothy M. Martin: Yes. I think if you operate under the assumptions that you just described, then you see that gradual upward trajectory throughout the first year, which in this instance would be 2026, and then you would see yourself returning to more historical levels as you get into the second half of 2027 on a quarterly basis. And then ultimately, you would roll into that on an annual basis as you go out then another year.

Brad Heffern: Okay. Thank you.

Timothy M. Martin: Thanks.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Todd Michael Thomas from KeyBanc. Your line is live.

Todd Michael Thomas: Hi. Thanks. Good morning. First, just on New York. Revenue growth improved from the third quarter and continued to outperform, as you mentioned, along with some of your other sort of core coastal infill markets. Are you assuming that momentum persists in 2026? And what is driving the strength in New York City in your view? Is it more the supply backdrop or are you seeing better demand? Any sense regarding the outperformance?

Christopher P. Marr: Yes. Hey, Todd. I would think about New York broadly as continuing to be the MSA that we would expect to be among our top-performing MSAs in 2026 as it was in 2025. I think you have two things moving in our favor. One is North Jersey and, to a lesser extent, Westchester County and Long Island are recovering from the headwind of supply. So when Tim talked about that, and I talked about that 19%, a good market that is benefiting from that is the North Jersey, Westchester, Long Island markets as part of the MSA. And then in the city itself, we continue to see very positive trends that we have experienced over the last several years.

You have good lengths of stay. Folks are using the product as an alternative to their living spaces, not as a market that is reliant on the buying and selling of existing homes. We obviously have extremely good brand awareness there, and we would expect that positive performance in the boroughs to continue.

Todd Michael Thomas: Okay. And then, Tim, you talked about buybacks and the buybacks completed in the quarter, potential dispositions, some potentially seeding assets into a joint venture. The stock price is higher by almost 15% relative to the price that you bought at in the fourth quarter. How actionable are buybacks today? And how do buybacks stack up against some of the other opportunities that you discussed?

Timothy M. Martin: Yes. I think we obviously have a share price which is a little bit more favorable for us today than where we were repurchasing back in the fourth quarter, but who knows what tomorrow brings or next week brings or next month brings. I think the point I am trying to make is that we are not sitting around waiting for the day where we get back to having a green light to grow and our share price is such that we can get back to buying $400 million, $500 million, $600 million worth of assets and do so accretively. We have not seen that environment now for a couple of years.

And to the extent that we are in a continued prolonged period of time where private market valuations are very disconnected from public market valuations, then what is actionable for us to continue to execute on our long-term strategic objectives would be to perhaps improve the overall quality of our portfolio by trimming some things that would have us improve the overall quality of the portfolio and turn around and redeploy that capital to buy back shares because implicit in that is an awfully good opportunity when you think about the implied cap rate even at the levels we are trading today.

While not as compelling from a share repurchase as where they were, it is still pretty compelling relative to opportunities to buy things on balance sheet. So we will see. It would be great for us if share repurchases were never attractive again and the share price continues to get back and we get back to where we believe we should be valued, which is at a premium to the value of our underlying assets. But to the extent we do not get back there and the disconnect remains, we are going to keep working to execute on our strategic objectives, and that might be a path for us to do it.

Todd Michael Thomas: Okay. That is helpful. Thank you.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Ravi Vijay Vaidya from Mizuho. Your line is live.

Ravi Vijay Vaidya: Hi there. Good morning. I saw that in the 4Q your fee income line item, probably your same-store revenue, was a bit elevated. Is this primarily from late fees or any other types of fees? And what is your assumption for this particular line item when considering your 2026 guide?

Timothy M. Martin: Yes. Good morning. Thanks for the question. So that line, the other property income line in same stores, includes a variety of things. It includes merchandise sales, which would include sales of locks and boxes and other items. It includes fees. It includes truck rental income, among some other things. And so we are always looking at ways to enhance growing our cash flows, and we look at every opportunity, and we have been able to, over time, be successful in finding ways to grow that line item along with growing other revenue line items and controlling expense line items. And so what you are seeing there is the fruits of all of those efforts.

Our 2026 expectations would be based on our expectation to continue to build upon what you see coming through the results in 2025 and continue at those levels and perhaps find even additional opportunities as we go forward.

Ravi Vijay Vaidya: Got it. That is helpful. And I wanted to kinda think about AI here, but from a demand perspective, some of the announcements that we have seen is some of the layoff activity seems to be coming in bulk and a little bit faster than what people might have initially anticipated. How do you think about these announcements and how it could reflect demand for self storage and moving and displacement as part of your portfolio right now?

Christopher P. Marr: I think the resiliency of our business, and I think it shines through when you think about the last few years, pressures on some of the demand drivers for our business, and yet the, in context, really solid results the sector has been able to put up, I think just speaks to the fact that we are a solution to a need for our customers regardless of the pleasurable or unpleasurable circumstances that create that need. We never want anyone to lose employment. We certainly want an economy that is humming on all cylinders where there are plenty of opportunities for jobs and opportunities for advancement. That is what has made this business work so well for so long.

But the reality is in an instance of displacement, we are a solution to help solve some of the related problems that come along with that.

Ravi Vijay Vaidya: Got it. Thank you.

Timothy M. Martin: Thanks.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Michael A. Griffin from ISI. Your line is live.

Michael A. Griffin: Great. Thanks. Maybe on the revenue side to start, appreciate the commentary as we have been through about two months of the year so far. But as you think about the interplay of rate versus occupancy, clearly, move-in rates are improving, but your occupancy is still kind of below your historical levels even pre-COVID. Give me a sense, does it make sense to maybe push on one of those levers over the other? I realize you are solving for revenue maximization at the end of the day, but in today’s environment, does one feel more opportunistic or applicable to drive relative to the other?

Christopher P. Marr: I think in today’s environment, given where we have been over the last several years, the opportunity is there, and it clearly has been over the last five months or so, to be able to focus on maximizing the value of that customer as opposed to focusing on the volume of customers. I think that has been our focus. I think we obviously, as an industry, need to continue this momentum of having positive growth in rates in order to generate those more historic levels of overall revenue growth that we have experienced over time. So that is kind of where the mindset is.

But as Tim articulated, those are decisions that are made on a daily, weekly basis, and we are constantly looking at that interplay between volume and rate.

Michael A. Griffin: Thanks, Chris. That is certainly some helpful context. And Tim, I know you touched in the prepared remarks on some debt market activity. I am curious what is contemplated in the guide as it relates to interest expense? And if you were to go out and refi those 2026 maturities, what you think the interest rate on that would be?

Timothy M. Martin: Yes. The guide has a range for a reason, and it is a little bit tricky because you are not only thinking about where we might execute from a, if we were in the market today it is not super relevant for the guidance because it comes down to when do we go, what tenor do we go with, and what does the world look like at that time.

And so what I was mentioning was kind of the plan today would be a consideration of going first half of the year, using those proceeds to pay down the line, which would then give us a lot of flexibility and capacity as we look at the back half of the year because if we found a compelling market to go again, that would be our preference, and just term out the maturity. But by freeing up all of the capacity under the line, when our bonds mature in September, we would have capacity to use the line of credit if we did not think that there was a good window for issuance at that time.

So the range contemplates a variety of things: when we go, how many times do we go, what tenor do we go with, and what does the world look like at that time.

Michael A. Griffin: Great. That is it for me. Thanks for the time.

Timothy M. Martin: Thank you. Have a good weekend.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Juan Carlos Sanabria from BMO Capital Markets.

Juan Carlos Sanabria: Hi. Good morning. Thanks for the time. Chris or Tim, maybe hoping you guys could expand a little bit on dispositions. You mentioned maybe pruning some non-core assets or markets presumably. Just curious how you think about that if the eventuality were to come to pass. Would you want to sell out of the current underperformers, whether it is certain Sunbelt or Southwest markets? Just curious on how you are thinking about that, recognizing it is kind of a fluid discussion or thought exercise.

Timothy M. Martin: Yes. It is a very fluid discussion and exercise. I think it could end up presenting itself in a variety of ways. The reality is we like our portfolio, so we do not have a long list of assets that we are anxious to get rid of. I think the reality is, as I mentioned, if there is a persistent environment in which there is a disconnect in valuations, then the opportunity for us to execute our strategic plan and to create shareholder value may be to find opportunities to trade assets and repurchase stock.

I think the reason I was not specifically saying dispositions or necessarily joint venture contributions is the joint venture concept is pretty attractive because we could maintain an ownership position in some of these assets that frankly we do not want to sell, and we could also get a little bit of additional economics through joint venture structure, through management fees, that type of thing. So it is, as you said, a fluid discussion. It is just the reality of where we are, and just sitting on our hands and hoping for a better day is not what we are doing.

Juan Carlos Sanabria: Understood. I appreciate that. And just my quick follow-up on the 2026 guidance and the recent history: has there been any change in cadence and the percent increases you are passing through and customers’ acceptance of those?

Timothy M. Martin: Yes. Not much of a change, and the contribution that we are expecting going forward is very consistent with the contribution that we have been receiving. So nothing really from a modeling standpoint or an expectation standpoint that is going to have a meaningful impact from ECRIs one way or the other.

Juan Carlos Sanabria: Great. Thank you.

Timothy M. Martin: Thanks.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Spenser Bowes Glimcher from Green Street. Your line is live.

Spenser Bowes Glimcher: Thank you. Sorry not to beat a dead horse here, but maybe just a follow-up on the share buyback discussion. I appreciate the rationale you shared regarding your view of the disadvantaged cost of equity. Given you did buy two assets in the quarter, and while I realize that the purchase price is only $50 million, what is it you are looking for in acquisition opportunities that would sway you to invest versus that simultaneous desire to shrink the asset base and buy back shares?

Timothy M. Martin: Yes. Great question. The horse is not quite dead yet, but let us kick it a few more times. The two assets that we bought, it is a process, and we had those under contract at a value that made sense to us. Inherent in those two opportunities is growth embedded in those that when they come onto our platform, we had some nice growth out of those. So we are still very excited about those two opportunities. As the year progressed and the quarter progressed and the disconnect became even larger and more pronounced, then the share buyback was something that we focused on.

So there still have been a lot of assets that have traded this year that were very attractive to us and would have been very complementary and attractive on our platform. Just the valuation did not make a lot of sense for us at this time. The world changes pretty quickly. I was going back to my notes from our year-end call a year ago, and we talked about selling shares on the ATM for an average of $51. So it changed pretty quickly. And so next quarter or the quarter after, we could be talking about contributing some assets to a joint venture and repurchasing some more shares.

We could be talking about buying a big portfolio and issuing shares under the ATM. We need to be prepared for any of those scenarios. Our investments team is working hard. Fortunately for us, we do have other options, as we had touched upon earlier, with co-investment strategies and the JV. And so we are still looking at both. We are certainly not closed for business. We are very involved in underwriting a lot of different opportunities. And to the extent that we found something, even on balance sheet, that had compelling enough return that we believe created shareholder value, then that is where we are focused.

Spenser Bowes Glimcher: Okay. That is great insight. Thank you. And then would you mind providing some color on the stabilized cap rates that you underwrote on those two assets?

Timothy M. Martin: Yes. So they were not stabilized cap rates. I mentioned last quarter that the assets that we had under contract, and then we closed two of the three, going in were in the low fives, and they were stabilizing into the 6% range in year two, two and a half.

Spenser Bowes Glimcher: Great. Thank you very much.

Timothy M. Martin: Thanks, Spencer.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Brendan Lynch from Barclays. Your line is live.

Brendan Lynch: Good morning. Thanks for taking my question. The commentary around 19% of assets facing new supply in 2026 was really helpful. If the pace of new starts does not accelerate, what percent of your portfolio do you think would be facing new deliveries in 2027?

Timothy M. Martin: Yes. So to a point of clarification, it is not markets. It is not 19% of our markets. It is literally 19% of our assets. You can have assets within a market, some of which are competing with new supply, some are not. So that is a point of clarification. We just disclosed the 19%, and you are asking for what it is going to be next year. So keep never good enough. But I think if you think about that three-year rolling period, for this year, it is deliveries in 2024, 2025, 2026. So next year, when we disclose this number, it will shift to be deliveries in 2025, 2026, and 2027.

So you will add 2027 deliveries, and you will drop off 2024 deliveries. I would think across our markets and across our portfolio that deliveries in 2027 will be a little bit lower than deliveries were in 2024, and so my expectation as we sit here today is that 19% would trend downward a little bit more.

Brendan Lynch: Okay. Thank you. That is helpful commentary. And then just on the CBRE joint venture, you mentioned that some value-add assets might be contributed as well. My sense is that value-add assets were something that you wanted to hold on balance sheet for the upside that you get as you improve those assets, relative to maybe some more stabilized assets being better candidates for joint ventures. Can you just walk us through the nuances of how you think about which assets are good candidates versus not with your JV partners?

Timothy M. Martin: Yes. Sorry. We are covering a lot of different things. I think we might have mixed two things together there. So the venture that we have with CBRE is focused on external opportunities, nothing that we would contribute. So the value-add opportunities that venture is seeking are value-add opportunities that we can find that are maybe earlier stages on our third-party management platform or going out and trying to identify those opportunities. So they are external opportunities that would be across the spectrum of value-add, core, core-plus. The concept of contributing assets is completely separate from that and is not as actionable here in the near term as the venture that we have with CBRE.

Brendan Lynch: I see. Good. Thank you.

Timothy M. Martin: Thank you.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Eric Luebchow from Wells Fargo. Your line is live.

Eric Luebchow: Great. Thanks for squeezing me in. Maybe you could touch on the New York MSA a little more. It had some nice acceleration in the quarter. Could you disaggregate where that strength is coming from, between the boroughs, North Jersey, Long Island, or anywhere else?

Christopher P. Marr: Sure. Really, the acceleration was across the board in each of those contexts. I think when you think about it by borough, Queens has been pretty consistent in terms of its revenue growth in Q2, Q3, Q4 and in terms of its occupancy stability. There has been a little bit of supply. One or two stores, I think, have opened there over the last year or two, but really not that impactful. We are seeing good growth in asking rent there. A little pressure in Long Island City when I mentioned supply because we have had some competitors open some very large stores in the last two or three years there, very close by to the cubes.

Brooklyn has been the leader through the year, putting up overall same-store revenue growth quarter in and quarter out north of 5%. Occupancy is there, also pretty steady. So a good driver is good lengths of stay, so able to continue to focus on the customer and then seeing some good move-in rate growth there as well, and that is pretty much across the board with the neighborhoods in Brooklyn from East New York through Gowanus. The Bronx saw pretty nice acceleration there throughout the year. That is somewhat going to be just a year-over-year comp. Occupancies there have been pretty steady, growing a little bit in the back half of the year.

And when looking at that again by area, we saw some strength throughout the year, getting better each quarter, at Riverdale, also some in that Bronx River area, South Bronx, Co-op City. Upstate has been pretty consistent. And then I think, as I said, our one store in Manhattan continues to perform consistently and well. Staten Island is recovering a bit from supply, which is the same story for the rest of the MSA. That would be the Westchester, Long Island, North Jersey area, where new supply has become much less of a headwind than it was certainly in 2024 and the first couple of months of 2025. Hopefully, that color is helpful.

Eric Luebchow: Yes. Thank you. Very comprehensive. I guess just one for Tim. I know you called out some tough comps in expenses this year. Maybe could you provide us a little more color on some of the expense growth you expect across some of the key line items like real estate taxes, personnel, anything else to call out that we should keep in mind for this year?

Timothy M. Martin: No. I called out the big ones. Those are the ones that were notable that I have discussed a couple times here.

Eric Luebchow: Okay. Thank you.

Timothy M. Martin: Thank you.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Eric Wolfe from Citigroup. Your line is live.

Eric Wolfe: Hey, thanks. You mentioned that you are a solution to the displacement that can occur during periods of job losses. I was just curious if, when you see accelerated layoffs or job losses in a certain market, how long that increased demand tends to last. And along with that, DC has definitely been one of your strong markets the last year, but I did notice that it decelerated a bit this quarter. I was curious if that was just noise in the numbers, tough comps, or maybe the lower employment is catching up there a bit.

Christopher P. Marr: Yes. Great question. Thanks. When you think about storage, we are a neighborhood, small trade ring business. And when you think about displacement, oftentimes that can either be so broad in terms of where the employees displaced come from. So I will use DC as that example. You have folks who work in the federal government in Bethesda at NIH, in Washington, DC proper at other agencies, who live as far away as Culpeper, Virginia or Frederick, Maryland or West Virginia, parts of Prince George’s County. So when we have our general managers focus on demand and try to inquire from the customer, as we always do, what is going on in your life, it is just so dispersed.

You just never really see an impact on any particular store there. So the DC overall performance is comps. We just had been on a run there for many, many quarters, and we just saw a little bit of that tough comp in Q4. But otherwise, it will continue to be a market we expect in 2026 to be a leader, the DC, the DMV, and a very good market for us. We also saw the ebb and flow of supply there, again just given the broad nature of that MSA.

But I think when you think about layoffs that might be within a plant or a business where the majority of the workers tend to be concentrated in a fairly tight geographic area, you would have a more correlated demand to the self storage opportunities in that area. But in terms of some historic trend, I do not have anything off the top of my mind that would be super insightful.

Eric Wolfe: That was very helpful. I guess, you know, you talked about this a lot today, so do not need to get too much more into it. But I guess one of the things that I am trying to figure out is you talked about things improving throughout last year. They have stayed very strong recently, improving some more. Is there some kind of common reason as to why? I mean, is it demand that has gotten better? Is it lower supply impact in the markets that are accelerating the most? Just easier comps? What is actually driving that improvement?

And what gives you the confidence to know that you have actually reached an inflection in whatever is going to drive it going forward?

Christopher P. Marr: I think it is all of the above. You have really touched on all of the drivers. What we have seen over the last four or five months is demand, and throughout all of 2025, frankly. We now have a new but fairly consistent demand profile for the business throughout the twelve months, and that baseline of what we have seen in 2024, but really in 2025, is the baseline that we are expecting here in 2026.

So if that is your baseline, but the impact of vacant space, new supply, continues to ramp down very helpfully, then you are just in a better position from a pricing perspective because those new stores that had opened in 2024 are reaching a better level of physical occupancy. And typically, the savvy operators in our space then start to focus on getting rate. So that is helpful for the submarket in which we operate. We still see a pretty healthy consumer for our product, and that is helpful. So I think it is all of the above. That is embedded in the range that Tim talked about, and that has been consistent now, as I said, for months.

We are feeling pretty optimistic as we go into 2026. Obviously, we have a range, and we are comfortable within that. I think the one item that we do not have factored in, and this is more recent news, is when you think about whether there is an opportunity here for those pent-up homeowners, homebuyers’ animal spirits to be unleashed as the 30-year fixed rate dropped yesterday below 6% for the first time in three years. You sit here and realize that today more homeowners have a mortgage rate above 6% than a rate below 3% for the first time in five years. We are not counting on it. It is not in guidance at all.

But certainly, the kind of news over the last few days here on that front could be very helpful and would just be pure upside.

Eric Wolfe: That is really helpful. Thank you.

Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Samir Upadhyay Khanal from Bank of America. Your line is live.

Samir Upadhyay Khanal: Good afternoon, everybody. I guess, Chris, I just wanted you to expand on, you talked a little bit about the transaction market, maybe talk about pricing. The reason I am asking is there was a big portfolio that traded in New York, and I am not sure how this is, the Carlyle and StorageMart one. I am not sure how we should think about that portfolio compared to your portfolio in New York. If that was complementary to your portfolio, do you think about that disconnect between private market valuation and where your stock trades today? Thanks.

Christopher P. Marr: Yes. Thanks for the question. The portfolio that you are referencing, we were a manager of some of those assets. We are a very good partner, and therefore, we do not talk about transactions that we were not involved in. You can certainly get more take on price, etcetera, from the buyer. New York is a great market. We continue to look for good opportunities there. In that particular instance, that just was not a transaction that made sense for CubeSmart, but it made sense for another operator there, and I am sure they would be happy to give you insight as to how they thought about what that pricing was, whatever in their mind they think it was.

Samir Upadhyay Khanal: That is it for me. Thanks.

Timothy M. Martin: Thank you.

Operator: Your final question comes from the line of Michael William Mueller from J.P. Morgan. Your line is live.

Michael William Mueller: Hey. Sorry to drag it out. Most stuff has been answered, but just a quick one. Are you likely to only sell assets if you see an opportunity with the stock being cheap or there is something to buy, or are there likely some assets you are just going to cycle out of no matter what?

Timothy M. Martin: Yes. I think the last part of that, cycle out of assets no matter what, was what I was trying to cover before. That list is very, very short for us. We like our existing portfolio. So the focus for us, and frankly the difficulty on executing on the concept that I am putting out there, is the timing piece. You cannot sell something in a week, and by the time you would sell it or contribute something to a venture, public market valuations change awfully quickly.

And so the objective for us would be to again further the strategic objective, improve the overall quality of the on-balance-sheet portfolio, and do so accretively, which would combine dispositions or contributions of assets to raise the capital and repurchase shares. The execution of that is a challenge, given the timing. And back to Spencer’s question earlier, we bought some properties and repurchased shares in the same quarter. We did not do them in the same week, but things change, and sometimes they change pretty quickly. So it comes down to if there is a prolonged period where there is a disconnect, and there has been, the execution of that, we believe, would make a lot of sense.

Michael William Mueller: Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Timothy M. Martin: Thanks, Mike.

Operator: That concludes the question-and-answer session. I would now like to turn the call back over to Christopher P. Marr for closing remarks.

Christopher P. Marr: Thank you, everyone, for your insightful questions. We have enjoyed the dialogue here this morning. We certainly are looking forward to the seasonal busy season for our industry. We have been off to a very solid start here in January and February, notwithstanding the unappetizing weather that we have seen here on the East Coast. But spring is sprung, and sun is coming, and the busy season for storage will be here before you know it, and we look forward to continuing our dialogue after we report first quarter earnings. Thank you very much. Have a great day.

Operator: This concludes today’s meeting. You may now disconnect.

This article is a transcript of this conference call produced for The Motley Fool. While we strive for our Foolish Best, there may be errors, omissions, or inaccuracies in this transcript. Parts of this article were created using Large Language Models (LLMs) based on The Motley Fool's insights and investing approach. It has been reviewed by our AI quality control systems. Since LLMs cannot (currently) own stocks, it has no positions in any of the stocks mentioned. As with all our articles, The Motley Fool does not assume any responsibility for your use of this content, and we strongly encourage you to do your own research, including listening to the call yourself and reading the company's SEC filings. Please see our Terms and Conditions for additional details, including our Obligatory Capitalized Disclaimers of Liability.

The Motley Fool has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.