Watchlist REIT Screener

From you. Swoopr has no licensed bulk REIT-data feed, so there is no live universe of trusts behind this page. You enter the figures for the trusts you are already researching, taken from each one's 10-K, 10-Q or quarterly supplemental package. The example dataset is fictional placeholder trusts, not real tickers. A screener that quietly invented payout ratios would be worse than no screener.

Because reported net income for a property owner is dominated by depreciation on buildings that are not obviously losing value, which makes earnings per share a poor description of what the portfolio produced. Nareit defines Funds From Operations as net income excluding gains and losses on property sales and adding back real estate depreciation and amortisation, which is why FFO and the payout ratios built on it are the standard measures across trusts.

Not automatically. Adjusted FFO is not a standardised definition: each trust decides which recurring capital expenditure, leasing costs and straight-line rent adjustments to subtract. Two trusts can both report AFFO and mean measurably different things by it. Before comparing AFFO payout ratios, check how each trust computed the number, which the supplemental package normally spells out.

No. A screen narrows a list against thresholds you chose. It says nothing about the quality of the buildings, the credit of the tenants, the local supply pipeline or what the trust will do next. Several presets here exist specifically to surface risk, such as short average debt maturity or distributions above reported FFO, and a trust passing those is being flagged for research, not endorsed.

EBITDAre is a real estate specific measure defined by Nareit that starts from EBITDA and further adjusts for items particular to property companies, including gains and losses on property sales and adjustments for unconsolidated joint ventures. Using it makes leverage ratios comparable across trusts that transact property at different rates, since a plain EBITDA figure can be inflated or depressed in any given period by disposals that say nothing about ongoing earning power.

The performance of properties the trust owned across both comparison periods, which strips out the effect of acquisitions and disposals. Total portfolio growth can be produced entirely by buying more buildings, which is a capital allocation outcome rather than an operating one. Same-store growth answers whether rents and occupancy in the existing portfolio improved, which is the closer measure of how the underlying business is doing.

Because a property trust is a leveraged business that refinances continuously, so when its debt comes due matters as much as how much of it there is. A trust with maturities spread evenly faces whatever credit conditions exist only on a small slice each year. One with a concentration coming due in a short window has its whole capital structure exposed to conditions on a date it chose years earlier. Two trusts with identical leverage can differ sharply on this.

How many times over the trust's earnings cover its fixed obligations, typically interest plus any preferred dividends and other required payments, rather than interest alone. That broader denominator matters for property trusts because preferred equity and ground lease payments are common parts of the capital structure. A coverage figure computed against interest only can look comfortable while the fuller obligation is much tighter.

Leased percentage counts space under signed lease, including tenants who have committed but not yet moved in or begun paying. Occupancy counts space physically occupied and generating rent. The gap between the two is forward-looking information: a leased figure meaningfully above occupancy points to revenue expected to arrive, while the reverse can signal tenants preparing to leave. Trusts disclose both, and comparing one trust's leased figure against another's occupancy is not a like-for-like comparison.