The RMR Group Inc. (RMR) Earnings Call Transcript & Summary

Good day, and welcome to RMR's Fiscal Fourth Quarter 2021 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note, this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Michael Kodesch. Please go ahead.

Good morning, and thank you for joining RMR's Fourth Quarter of Fiscal 2021 Conference Call. With me on today's call are President and CEO, Adam Portnoy and Chief Financial Officer, Matt Jordan. In just a moment, they will provide details about our business and quarterly results, followed by a question-and-answer session. I would like to note that the recording and retransmission of today's conference call is prohibited without the prior written consent of the company. Today's conference call contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and other securities laws. These forward-looking statements are based on RMR's beliefs and expectations as of today, November 16, 2021, and actual results may differ materially from those that we project. The company undertakes no obligation to revise or publicly release the results of any revision to the forward-looking statements made in today's conference call. Additional information concerning factors that could cause those differences is contained in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which can be found on our website at www.rmrgroup.com. Investors are cautioned not to place undue reliance upon any forward-looking statements. In addition, we may discuss non-GAAP numbers during this call, including adjusted net income, adjusted earnings per share, adjusted EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA margin. Reconciliation of net income determined in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles to adjusted net income, adjusted earnings per share, adjusted EBITDA and the calculation of adjusted EBITDA margin can be found in our earnings release. And now I would like to turn the call over to Adam.

Thank you, Michael, and thank you all for joining us this morning. I'm pleased to report that RMR finished the fiscal year on a high note as we delivered yet another strong quarter financially. This quarter, we reported adjusted net income of $0.50 per share, which was at the high end of our guidance and represents a 28% increase on a year-over-year basis. Adjusted EBITDA this quarter was $26.3 million, which represents a 27% increase compared to last year. Subsequent to quarter end, one of our managed clients, ILPT, announced a $4 billion acquisition of Monmouth Real Estate Investment Corporation. Monmouth owns a portfolio of 126 Class A industrial and logistics properties that are largely occupied by tenants whose businesses are driven by e-commerce. This acquisition is expected to be immediately accretive to ILPT and will be funded through a combination of joint venture equity and debt. The Monmouth acquisition is the largest single transaction ever announced by an RMR-managed company. Not only will the transaction significantly grow RMR's AUM, but it also highlights RMR's alignment with ILPT shareholders. For example, ILPT does not plan to raise common equity to fund this transaction. And equity for this transaction will come from forming a joint venture with institutional private investors. As a result, this transaction also highlights the success RMR's had with building out our private capital fundraising capabilities and demonstrates how quickly RMR can scale its business with the current infrastructure. Our ability to further expand our private capital relationships comes from our commercial real estate expertise, operational excellence and world-class client service. This quarter, despite the pandemic-related headwinds, our organization again delivered another strong quarter of leasing activity as we arranged almost 2.9 million square feet of leases on behalf of our clients, an increase of 40% sequentially. More impressively, we arranged over 10.5 million square feet of leasing in fiscal year 2021, which is a 39% increase compared to pre-pandemic levels from fiscal year 2019. Notably, we saw encouraging leasing trends at OPI as tenants increasingly utilized their office space and prospective tenants have started making strategic real estate decisions. At OPI, we arranged 659,000 square feet of leases during the quarter, which is 37% above the trailing 12-month average and generated a weighted average lease term of almost 11 years. With the Delta variant waning, we are optimistic that demand for office space will remain on a positive trajectory going forward. Much like DHC's $114 million redevelopment of its life science asset in Torrey Pines, California, which is now 100% leased and expected to generate double-digit cash-on-cash returns, there are also significant redevelopment opportunities in OPI's portfolio as well. We are currently advancing plants to convert OPI's 300,000 square foot property in Seattle, Washington to life science use. OPI plans to invest $140 million in redevelopment capital in this project, which is expected to generate stabilized returns in excess of 10%. Turning to DHC. As of today, DHC has entered new management agreements for all communities transitioning from Five Star to a diverse group of best-in-class regional operators. We believe DHC is now well positioned to unlock value and improve performance within its senior living portfolio. Operationally, this quarter, DHC's SHOP portfolio started to improve from the lows experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, same-property SHOP occupancy from Five Star managed communities experienced its second consecutive quarter of occupancy growth, with sales leads increasing 41% sequentially during the quarter and tour volumes also increasing materially in October. We remain optimistic regarding the senior living sector, given these encouraging signs and believe the industry will benefit from a rapidly growing target demographic that will drive demand for senior living in the future. Turning to an update on SVC. SVC continues its repositioning efforts and is in the process of selling 68 hotels in an effort to improve the overall quality of the portfolio, lower leverage, reduce future capital expenditures and improve liquidity. From an operational perspective, SVC's hotel EBITDA has been positive on a monthly basis since April due to elevated leisure demand, strong performance within its extended stay hotel portfolio and slowly improving business travel demand. Sonesta, the primary operator of SVC's lodging assets today is executing on its plans to improve operational performance across the portfolio. For the hotels managed by Sonesta, comparable hotel activity this quarter saw average occupancy increase almost 3 percentage points to 61%. Average daily rate increased 12.5%, and RevPAR increased over 18% on a sequential quarter basis. These results were achieved despite disruption in the quarter from the Delta variant. Lastly, RMR Mortgage Trust and Tremont Mortgage Trust completed their merger on September 30 to create Seven Hills Realty Trust. The merger created a larger, more diversified commercial mortgage REIT with an expanded capital base, improved access to capital and greater financial strength. With significant dry powder available and expected interest rate increases ahead, Seven Hills' focus on middle market floating rate transitional bridge loans, leaves it well positioned in the current environment. This quarter, Seven Hills closed 6 new loans, representing $140 million in originations, which is the highest level of quarterly originations since going public in 2017. Following the $7 per share special dividend in September, RMR ended the quarter with nearly $160 million in cash, and we continue to have no debt. Despite this special dividend, we remain well capitalized to expand our business. In support of this effort, we recently announced the hiring of an in-house resource to establish a capital markets team focused on sourcing, private capital from high net worth investors, family offices, targeted registered investment advisers, foundations and endowments. We look forward to announcing additional progress on our private capital growth initiatives in the coming months. I'll now turn the call over to Matt Jordan, our Chief Financial Officer, who will review our financial results for the quarter.

Thanks, Adam. Good morning, everyone. This quarter's results continue to demonstrate the strong momentum across many of our key operating and financial metrics. We again recorded sequential and year-over-year increases in every headline metric, the majority of which were also in line with our guidance for the quarter. Before I discuss our results and expectations for next quarter, I'd like to touch on the Monmouth transaction. Monmouth is expected to close in the first half of calendar '22 and will generate incremental annual run rate revenues, though the ultimate amounts are subject to how much joint venture capital is raised and how many properties are ultimately disposed of. While there will be incremental overhead costs, our historical investments in people, processes and technology will substantially minimize these costs. We expect to have more definitive guidance on Monmouth-related fees and any incremental costs on our next earnings call. Turning to this quarter's results and our expectations for next quarter. Management and advisory service revenues increased for the fifth straight quarter with revenues reaching $46.8 million, a $1.3 million increase on a sequential quarter basis. This increase is attributable to property management fees from recent REIT acquisitions, increased construction management fees tied to our expanded oversight of client redevelopment activities and revenue growth at our managed operating companies. Looking ahead to next quarter, we expect revenues to be flat, based upon October average enterprise values at our managed equity REITs and seasonal declines at our managed operating companies, that will be offset by increases in construction management revenues. As it relates to incentive fees, OPI continues to accrue an incentive fee for calendar 2021. As we highlighted on our last earnings call, S&P Global discontinued the SNL indices that we historically benchmarked our REITs against. As a result, we agreed with the Boards of the managed equity REITs to transition prospectively to the applicable subsector MSCI indices for each managed equity REIT. If October 31 had been the end of a measurement period, we would have earned an annual incentive fee of approximately $9 million. Turning to expenses for the quarter. Cash compensation of $29 million was down sequentially and was lower than our expectations for the quarter, largely due to the timing of open positions being filled. After considering annual merit increases that were effective October 1, projected bonus inflation and strategic headcount investments, we expect cash compensation to be approximately $31 million next quarter. G&A was $7.3 million this quarter, an increase of approximately $1 million sequentially, primarily due to increased third-party costs related to our expanded role in hotel and senior living construction. As it relates to our expanded construction oversight, this quarter, we oversaw $54 million in construction and almost 20% increase from last quarter. As we look into fiscal '22, we expect construction volumes to further increase to $75 million next quarter and $150 million per quarter in calendar '22. These projections for construction volumes are conservative estimates to reflect possible supply chain disruption. Construction management fees will, in turn, expand to almost $3.5 million next quarter and then hit almost $6 million per quarter in calendar '22. I share this additional color on our construction fee revenues as we expect there will be some incremental third-party costs to supplement our internal resources. Looking ahead to fiscal '22, we expect G&A costs to be approximately $7.5 million next quarter, an increase to approximately $8.5 million per quarter in calendar '22. As it relates to our income tax rate, we expect our tax rate for fiscal '22 to settle at 14.7%, as the current fiscal year includes a favorable 60 basis point reduction associated with executive compensation deduction limitations. In summary, we expect operating tailwinds to help offset some of the cost inflation we are projecting, with adjusted earnings per share expected to range from $0.47 to $0.49 per share and adjusted EBITDA to range from $24 million to $25 million next quarter. We believe our balance sheet leaves us well positioned to pursue a range of capital allocation strategies with a focus on the continued growth of our private capital business. That concludes our formal remarks. Operator, would you please open the line to questions.

[Operator Instructions] And the first question comes from Bryan Maher with B. Riley FBR.

Matt and Adam, 2 questions for me this morning. One, on the MNR acquisition, at the end of the day, when all said and done, Adam, what would you anticipate ends up in JV? What ends up being sold and what ends up being kept by ILPT?

Sure. Thanks for that question, Bryan. Yes, we don't know precisely how it's all going to shake out. I can tell you sort of the 2 -- I think there's sort of 2 base cases or 2 different ways it could shake out. One, the entire portfolio could end up in a JV with probably 2 or more partners with ILPT retaining a co-investment in that JV. That's sort of one extreme. The other extreme is probably that we keep it on balance sheet. We only move forward with one JV partner that we've essentially lined up today for a significant equity investment in it. If that's the case, the portfolio -- the $4 billion portfolio would probably shrink by about $1.5 billion or $1.6 billion. In either case, the transaction will be accretive -- fairly sizably accretive to ILPT. And that sort of -- and it will sort of -- leverage will sort of be between 6x and 8x debt-to-EBITDA for ILPT and it sort of depends on where it shakes out. That's sort of where it shakes out, I call it, in and around closing. Longer term, depending on how much leverage we have, it may make sense to try to sell additional assets longer-term that may be not part of the Monmouth portfolio and/or bring in additional equity partners post-closing that we could bring in as well. But sort of -- those are the sort of 2 ends of the benchmark. It's either a full thing goes in a JV, it's still accretive for -- it's very accretive for ILPT or we've sort of going through a partial JV where it remains on the balance sheet, but all the equity is raised from just one partner. Another thing to highlight that I think is very important and it's sort of alluded in your question, we're not raising any -- and have no plans to raise any equity capital from the share issuance at ILPT. We think this highlights the high alignment of interest between ILPT and RMR and how we structured this. The fact that we were able to find third-party capital that was able to -- there was interest in this to partner with us, to do this deal, also highlights, we think, the strength of the RMR platform and the success we have had in building out those relationships over the last couple of years. So I think there's positives. There's a lot of positives for ILPT. It's a lot of positives for RMR. Sort of -- I look at it as it's a really great transaction to a really good transaction. Either way, it's a win-win for both. It's just a matter of exactly how it's going to shake out.

And in your discussions with sovereign wealth funds, what would you characterize as their appetite to do more of these deals, above and beyond MNR? And what is their -- how are they viewing this? Is it simply that it's better relative risk-adjusted returns and a fairly simple process since they've gotten to know RMR of deploying capital into certain industries through you? And do you suspect we might see any other similar type deals, maybe not of that size across the other managed REITS?

Yes. I would say the appetite from sovereign wealth funds generally is pretty robust to continue to invest in commercial real estate in the United States, in certain sectors, especially in and around industrial. I think the fact that we have had a successful joint venture, get off the ground so far with a couple of sovereigns at ILPT certainly was -- helped us get this deal -- announce this deal as well. Yes, I think this relationship with, what I'd call permanent capital providers, equity capital providers like the sovereigns is going to continue to grow for our company at RMR. And I think there are going to be ways that we're going to be able to do deals and transactions sort of with the REITS -- not with the REITS. I think there's going to be a lot of different ways we're going to grow this way. With regards to their appetite to put money to work in different asset classes, yes, I think generally, industrial, multifamily, within sectors of office, they're very focused on putting money out to work. I'd even say in sectors of retail, you might be surprised that they have appetite to put money to work. So the only place I think they're probably a little shy to put money to work today is probably within hotels. Some downtown office towers, their general office, probably the senior living sector is an area that they're probably a little shy to put money to work. Those are the areas we're involved in, but that sure gives you a feel for what their appetite's like.

The next question comes from Ronald Kamdem with Morgan Stanley.

Just sticking on the ILPT deal. Maybe can you provide just any color on your conversations with the private capital partners. What are they sort of evaluating to decide how much to participate within this deal? If you could just give us a sense of is it their own capital sources? Is it how much industrials they want? Is it quality? Is it markets? Just what would make them take on more of this deal and less of this deal? What are the factors?

Yes. So thank you for that question. They're very -- the partners we're talking to, there's a -- generally speaking, most institutions went into the last -- if you start in 2019, they were almost all across the board. You look at institutions, investments in commercial real estate, they were all underweight industrial. Everybody -- this is pre-pandemic, wanting to increase the allocations to industrial. That just became almost on steroids as we got into the pandemic. And so, there's even more desire to increase their exposure to industrial. I think the things that got -- we're attractive about the Monmouth transaction for the partners we are talking with and the things we've talked about at ILPT when it announced the transaction, very high-quality real estate. The average age of the buildings is about 9 years. The average lease term is about 8 years. It's almost 100% leased. It's over 80% investment-grade rated. It's -- in some ways, it's a high -- a core portfolio of industrial, almost supercore portfolio of industrial assets. And I think they appropriately -- we're thinking about what type of returns they wanted to get on that type of investment, which allowed us working with them to ultimately win the portfolio. And I think they also leaned a lot on us because we are very close to the ground with regards to what's going on in the industrial sector. There's been a lot of press written about how ILPT was the successful bidder for Monmouth, but there were other bidders that are better known than us that were also bidding and that they -- and we outbid them. I would argue that we actually, because of the way we're set up, and the amount -- and the number of transactions we look at from an industrial perspective, I mean, we're actively looking at the sub-$50 million transaction level. We look at transactions $50 million to $100 million. We can also look at transactions $150 million. It's just because of the way we're organized with our almost 35 offices around the country, the relationships we have in multiple different markets, we had a really -- we have a really good sense of where the market is for industrial real estate today. And we feel very confident that we bought this at a discount to where it would trade sort of broken up, meaning, some people call it, you buy wholesale and you could sell retail. We're actually pretty optimistic if we are -- if we end up going down the path that we have to sell some assets here, we might end up selling them at a higher price than we allocated to these assets based on the purchase price of $4 billion, meaning cap rates, we have seen cap rates for lower quality real estate with lower credit quality in worse markets trade at lower cap rates than what we're going into with this transaction at 4%. So I think all those factors sort of played a role in the partners that we are -- the partners that we are talking to regarding this transaction. I think they feel very excited about the transaction. And again, everybody's underallocated industrial and this is an opportunity to buy a large portfolio. The way I answer one last part of your question, you asked if it's direct capital. This is direct capital we're talking to. These are not syndicators. We're not talking to some intermediary that then -- we are talking to the actual provider and manager of the actual capital itself. It's a sovereign wealth investor that we are dealing with that is lined up. And most of the capital we're talking to that potentially also come into the transaction is the same characterization of that capital, direct capital, not dealing with intermediaries, not dealing with syndicators. We're dealing with the ultimate sort of provider of the capital.

Great. And then just my second one was just -- so to the extent that this goes mostly on balance sheet, I think the presentation talked about anywhere from $0 to $1.6 billion of sales of assets. I was just curious on that -- to the extent that it is going that route, what's sort of the high level how you decide which assets to keep, which assets to sell? Are there just obvious sell candidates geographic wise? Or how do you go about sort of parsing which ones you keep, which ones you sell?

Sure. It's a great question. It's a question we're still working our way through in this. We obviously entered the transaction with an idea of which properties we would look -- think about selling, but we haven't finalized that process yet. The hard thing with this portfolio and you're -- people are going to think I'm being cute, but the whole portfolio is really high quality. And so, when we talk about selling assets, general view is we'd like to sell the lower quality assets within the portfolio, but that is on a relative basis within the portfolio. So not quote me specifically on these numbers, but for example, if the whole portfolio is being bought at a 4% cap, there are some buildings that are like are probably worth 3.5%, and there are some buildings worth 4.5%. We're probably going to migrate towards a majority of the portfolio that we think about selling is going to be more in the 4%. The little -- the lesser quality within the portfolio. So more of the properties that might be at the 4.5% cap rate. Now that all being said, that's with the value we put on them, we honestly believe that if we go out in the market on an individual basis or small portfolio, we'll probably do better than that just because what we're seeing in the market. But I think that sort of gives you a sense of how we're looking at the portfolio for the potential sales.

That's super helpful. If I could sneak in one more, just on senior housing because you touched on it and you've obviously seen sort of the occupancy pickup from the NIC data. But maybe what are you seeing in terms of labor cost? We heard about the labor shortages? Just any color there?

Sure. Within the senior living business, our -- the company we oversee, Five Star, is clearly experiencing the same things that you hear about throughout the industry. There are labor issues in filling open positions. They have been addressing that, partly addressing that by increasing wages. It's not a one-size-fits-all in all markets because we have a portfolio in several different markets. That -- it sort of depends on the prevailing wage in that market, what are your competitors? I mean, I think what the team is doing is even providing more flexibility out to regions and to community leaders to sort of have more discretion in terms of trying to increase wages, if necessary, to try to fill some of those labor shortages throughout the portfolio. But it's real. We not only see labor shortages and wage inflation in senior living. We obviously run a large hotel portfolio within the organization. We also run a large number of truck stops that have a large number of employees. This is pervasive, not just in senior living, but sort of across industries, and it's sort of the same story across the board that we're seeing.

The next question comes from Jim Sullivan with BTIG.

Adam, just continuing with some questions on the private capital initiatives, I'm not sure you may have disclosed this, but the -- I think you've indicated you have one definite sovereign wealth investor for the ILPT transaction. Did you indicate whether that sovereign wealth investor had also done business on the prior JV you had structured with ILPT?

Sure. I'm not sure if we've disclosed it, but I'm happy to tell you that, that sovereign investor, yes, we have done business with them before, and they are involved with us in the prior ILPT joint venture, yes. So, they have a long history with us, yes. Yes.

Okay, good. And I was interested in your comment about building a private sourcing group -- private capital sourcing group internally going after different pockets of capital, that you put together, I guess, this quarter, maybe last quarter as well. And I wonder, kind of 2-part question or really kind of a 3-part question. But do you have a kind of target amount of capital that you would like that group to raise, number one. Number two, what is the incremental cost for putting together this group that you have? And then thirdly, is there a specific vehicle that the group will be raising capital for? For example, an open-ended fund of some sort, what is the shape of this to come that we should expect?

Yes. So thanks, Jim. To sort of answer your 3- part question, the target capital raise, I don't think we have a specific number out there other than multi-billions of dollars. We wouldn't be taking this on unless we could get well north of $1 billion raised this way. We actually feel pretty bullish that we're going to be able to raise significant amounts of capital away from the public markets in private -- from private investors going forward. Sovereign wealth funds being one source of the capital, but I think there's going to be opportunities in other channels as well. And so there's no real ceiling on the amount of capital, but we certainly have pretty high hopes that it will be in the billions. The incremental cost, today, it's not very much at all. It consists of one dedicated resource internally. As that group gains more success, I think you'll see the number of resources sort of grow. I think the -- I don't -- let me put it this way. I don't think you're going to see us adding a significant amount of cost before we start seeing significant amount of dollars raised. So it's going to be sort of incremental costs along the way. And as they have more success, the costs will probably go -- will increase for that group, but it's not going to be front-end loaded if that's -- if you understand what I mean. In terms of the vehicles, yes, we have a couple of vehicles that we are very focused on approaching the market with today. I'm not going to get too specific about the vehicles other than to say that they are structured like an open-end fund, meaning they're permanent capital vehicles. So they do provide some liquidity, but they're not -- but it's not an open end fund. It's sort of -- it's permanent capital vehicles that do allow for some ability to redeem your interests over time. But the way we're structuring it is, there's a pretty sizable lockup in the first, call it, several years of the investment. And then, there's limited liquidity events on the out years. It's sort of being set up as we think about it in a permanent capital basis. And look, in terms of the asset classes, you can think about what I said earlier on the call that it's in the areas that investors have appetite for and which we feel pretty good about in terms of their long-term growth prospects. It's industrial. It's also sectors of the office space, such as like medical office buildings or life science buildings. It could be sectors of the retail space. We own a lot of retail within the organization, but it's pretty focused on service-oriented net lease retail, which retail has been covered with pretty badly, bad brush stroke through the pandemic, but net lease single-tenant retail has actually done quite well, and we own a large portfolio of those. So that could be an area that we could expand into. So, I think we have a lot of different areas that we could take the platform. And yes, we are -- we have some -- we have a couple of vehicles that we are getting geared up to take to market. And we -- based on initial feedback from sort of testing those vehicles out with a, call it, a handful or more than a handful of investors gotten pretty positive reaction so far. So we feel pretty optimistic about the success we may have with it.

And just -- I'm curious, given the liquidity on the RMR balance sheet as well as the liquidity that's available with either operators or managed REITS. Would you expect that any of that will be sourced for -- to put skin in the game if it were, before you market the product, before you start to market the product directly to family offices, et cetera?

Yes. The short answer is yes. That's really -- as I think about the liquidity on our balance sheet, that's primarily where I think about it might be being used as co-investment into some of these vehicles as we get them going as -- as sort of how we've earmarked it. In terms of when the money comes in, I don't think -- from a timing perspective, just the way these vehicles we're sort of thinking about them. They would -- the money would probably come in simultaneously. The co-investment will come in simultaneously with the sort of the investment from third parties. So I don't think it would be in advance of. It would be sort of lined up to come in at the same time as the third-party capital comes in. So that's the way we're thinking about it.

Okay. Then finally for me, the private equity platform acquisition idea that has been talked about for several quarters now, but you haven't been able to find the right fit, is this new platform instead of that? Or are you still looking to acquire a private equity platform?

Sure. Yes. We talked about it -- you're right, Jim, we've talked about it for many quarters, a couple of years probably we've been talking about it. I don't know if it's instead of, but it's certainly where our focus is now is trying to -- we've had a fair amount of success -- I think we're going to have more success in the coming months and quarters around the private capital capabilities and organically growing it. So that is clearly where our focus is. We were very focused for about 2 years on acquiring a platform. When I say focus, we were actively -- I don't know how else to say it, hunting for a platform, actively reaching out to different firms, identifying firms. We were working with third-party advisers to help us do this. And we pretty much scoured the universe of potential partners. We got down the road 3 different times with 3 different partners where we had reached agreement on principal. The economics were done and all 3 deals sort of unraveled over social issues. Essentially, the founders of the businesses decided that they did not want to exit. And they wanted to -- and so they ended up not doing a deal with anybody. It's not just with us. They just didn't do a deal with anybody. And it wasn't over price. It was over sort of social issues. So we sort of spent 2 years at 3 bites at 3 different apples, trying to make it happen. And we -- after the third one, which really happened this summer sort of walked away from us after we reached agreement, we had a term sheet agreed to, we sort of stepped back and said, we probably should not be focused on as much proactive energy around M&A. So that's really the change, meaning we're not actively sort of going out there. We don't have any third-party advisers on retention that are helping us seek out those type of partners. That all being said, for the last 2 years, we've met a lot of people. So we know a lot of folks. And we -- just in the last quarter, we were approached by a group that -- which has indicated that it's interesting in selling that we had not talked to before, and they approached us because they knew we were active in the marketplace. It's probably not a transaction that's going to work for us, but just the fact that they reached out to us, and I don't think they reached out to many groups. I think it was a very small group of folks they reached out to, is sort of indicative of that, we're out there. People know we're there. I think we will continue to evaluate M&A. We're not adverse to it. We'd like to do it. I just think it's going to be more reverse inquiry. It's going to come to us more than us sort of seeking it out on our own.

[Operator Instructions] The next question comes from Kenneth Lee with RBC Capital Markets.

Just one on the ILPT/ Monmouth announcement there. Could you just talk broadly how the economics could potentially differ for RMR just based on the 2 scenarios that you outlined, whether the assets could go on the JV or retain on the balance sheet?

Ken, clearly, given all the variables Adam outlined, the range is pretty wide, but just to give you ballpark, from a gross fee run rate, it could be as low as $7 million based on the facts as we know them today, to as high as $22 million. And as we highlighted in our prepared remarks, I think over the next few months, before our next call, we'll have more clarity to provide, but that is the range as we see it today.

Great. Very helpful. And then just one follow-up around the prepared remarks. You talked about construction revenues and seeing some potential impact from supply chain. Wondering if you could just further elaborate upon that.

I don't think it's anything different than what you're hearing in the news or seeing elsewhere. I just think we -- in the numbers I quoted, we wanted to be clear that we've hedged those a bit. Our hope is to exceed those ranges, but those numbers reflect some of the delays we're seeing in getting product and the price inflation we're seeing on the jobs and the construction we're doing. And as we -- I'm giving you forecasts out into late into '22. There's just so many variables that we just wanted to make clear, the $150 million per quarter in calendar '22 is obviously subject to change, but nonetheless, we're hoping we can beat those numbers.

The next question comes again from Jim Sullivan with BTIG.

A very specific question, you've talked previously in terms of densification projects about a former -- a travel center site in Nashville or maybe an existing travel center site in Nashville. And I just wonder if you could give us an update as to if there is one for what your plans are around that location?

Sure, specifically around the Nashville site, that is a project that is still, I would say, relatively early days. We are -- we have gotten broad sort of first round approvals from the city. I think in terms of how large it could be, it could be as large as upwards of 4 million square feet of mixed use. It's a 20-acre site. It's got 4 basically [ center ] blocks that you could think about that are available for redevelopment. What we are in the process of trying to figure out now is, obviously, it'd be a stage development. And we're trying to figure out what is the first stage. The good news is, I can just tell you at a high level, there's been a lot of interest from both, I call, office and retail tenants that are interested in anchoring the first phase of that project. I think that is a project that, at its earliest, we would not be talking about kicking off actual construction until late into '22 or sometime well into '22 before it could really get going. But it is a project that is progressing. We are continuing to do a lot of work on it. We feel very bullish about the national market generally. We feel very bullish about the East Bank and what's going on, on that side of the river next to where the titans play and there's a lot of different development projects. We're not the only parcel or large parcel that is being planned for redevelopment over there. For investors listening in on this call, maybe the closest analogy that we see to the East Bank and it's actually very analogous to us is here in the Boston market, it's a lot like the Seaport District. So across the river, in an area that if you looked at here in Boston, 10, 15 years ago, it was nothing but a bunch of parking lots. And today, it's a really well-developed mixed use, almost second downtown to Boston. It feels very similar down there in the East Bank when you go there and you look at it and you talk about -- and you see what's happening in Nashville and arguably Boston's got a lot of very positive attributes. But Nashville is clearly a market that's growing, and we feel pretty good about the prospects for a development on the East Bank there.

This concludes our question-and-answer session. I'll now turn the conference back over to Adam Portnoy for any closing remarks.

Thank you all for joining us today. Operator, that concludes our call.

The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.