ITEM 1a.  risk factors

Material factors that may adversely affect our business and operations are summarized below.

REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS’ VALUE AND INCOME FLUCTUATE DUE TO VARIOUS FACTORS.

The value of real estate fluctuates depending on conditions in the general economy and the real estate business.  These conditions may also adversely impact our revenues and cash flows.

The factors that affect the value of our real estate include, among other things:

·      national, regional and local economic conditions;

·      competition from other available space;

·      local conditions such as an oversupply of space or a reduction in demand for real estate in the area;

·      how well we manage our properties;

·      changes in market rental rates;

·      the timing and costs associated with property improvements and rentals;

·      whether we are able to pass all or portions of any increases in operating costs through to tenants;

·      changes in real estate taxes and other expenses;  

·      whether tenants and users such as customers and shoppers consider a property attractive;

·      the financial condition of our tenants, including the extent of tenant bankruptcies or defaults;

·      availability of financing on acceptable terms or at all;

·      fluctuations in interest rates;

·      our ability to obtain adequate insurance;

·      changes in zoning laws and taxation;

·      government regulation;

·      consequences of any armed conflict involving, or terrorist attack against, the United States;

·      potential liability under environmental or other laws or regulations;

·      natural disasters;

·      general competitive factors; and

·          climate changes.

The rents we receive and the occupancy levels at our properties may decline as a result of adverse changes in any of these factors.  If our rental revenues and/or occupancy levels decline, we generally would expect to have less cash available to pay our indebtedness and for distribution to our stockholders.  In addition, some of our major expenses, including mortgage payments, real estate taxes and maintenance costs generally do not decline when the related rents decline.

Capital markets and economic conditions can materially affect our financial condition and results of operations and the value of our debt and equity securities.

There are many factors that can affect the value of our debt and equity securities, including the state of the capital markets and economy, which over the past few years have negatively affected substantially all businesses, including ours.  Demand for office and retail space may continue to decline nationwide as it did in 2008 and 2009, due to bankruptcies, downsizing, layoffs and cost cutting.  The cost and availability of credit may be adversely affected by illiquid credit markets and wider credit spreads may adversely affect our liquidity and financial condition, and the liquidity and financial condition of our tenants.  Our inability or the inability of our tenants to timely refinance maturing liabilities and access the capital markets to meet liquidity needs may materially affect our financial condition and results of operations and the value of our debt and equity securities.

Real estate is a competitive business.

We operate in a highly competitive environment.  All of our properties are located in the greater New York City metropolitan area.  We compete with a large number of real estate property owners and developers, some of which may be willing to accept lower returns on their investments than we are.  Principal factors of competition include rents charged, attractiveness of location, the quality of the property and breadth and quality of services provided.  Our success depends upon, among other factors, trends affecting national and local economies, the financial condition and operating results of current and prospective tenants and customers, availability and cost of capital, construction and renovation costs, taxes, governmental regulations, legislation and population trends. 

We depend on leasing space to tenants on economically favorable terms and collecting rent from tenants who may not be able to pay.

Our financial results depend significantly on leasing space in our properties to tenants on economically favorable terms.  In addition, because a majority of our income is derived from renting real property, our income, funds available to pay indebtedness and funds available for distribution to stockholders will decrease if certain of our tenants cannot pay their rent or if we are not able to maintain our occupancy levels on favorable terms.  If a tenant does not pay its rent, we might not be able to enforce our rights as landlord without delays and might incur substantial legal and other costs.  During periods of economic adversity, there may be an increase in the number of tenants that cannot pay their rent and an increase in vacancy rates.

Bankruptcy or insolvency of tenants may decrease our revenues, net income and available cash.

From time to time, some of our tenants have declared bankruptcy, and other tenants may declare bankruptcy or become insolvent in the future.  In the case of our shopping centers, the bankruptcy or insolvency of a major tenant could cause us to have difficulty leasing the remainder of the affected property.  Our leases generally do not contain restrictions designed to ensure the creditworthiness of our tenants.  As a result, the bankruptcy or insolvency of a major tenant could result in a lower level of net income and funds available for the payment of our indebtedness or distribution to stockholders. 

Some of our tenants represent a significant portion of our revenues.  Loss of these tenant relationships or deterioration in the tenants’ credit quality could adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations.

Bloomberg accounted for $84,526,000, $83,137,000 and $77,988,000, or 33%, 34% and 35% of our consolidated revenues in the years ended December 31, 2011, 2010 and 2009, respectively.  No other tenant accounted for more than 10% of our consolidated revenues in any of the last three years.  If we were to lose Bloomberg as a tenant, or if Bloomberg were to fail or become unable to perform its obligations under its lease, it would adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

We face risks associated with our tenants being designated “Prohibited Persons” by the Office of Foreign Assets Control. 

Pursuant to Executive Order 13224 and other laws, the Office of Foreign Assets Control of the United States Department of the Treasury (“OFAC”) maintains a list of persons designated as terrorists or who are otherwise blocked or banned (“Prohibited Persons”) from conducting business or engaging in transactions in the United States.  Our leases, loans and other agreements may require us to comply with OFAC requirements.  If a tenant or other party with whom we conduct business is placed on the OFAC list we may be required to terminate the lease or other agreement.  Any such termination could result in a loss of revenue or otherwise negatively affect our financial results and cash flows.

Inflation or deflation may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Although neither inflation nor deflation has materially impacted our operations in the recent past, increased inflation could have a pronounced negative impact on our mortgages and interest rates and general and administrative expenses, as these costs could increase at a rate higher than our rents.  Inflation could also have an adverse effect on consumer spending which could impact our tenants’ sales and, in turn, our percentage rents, where applicable.  Conversely, deflation could lead to downward pressure on rents and other sources of income.

Our business and operations would suffer in the event of system failures. 

Despite system redundancy, the implementation of security measures and the existence of a disaster recovery plan for our internal information technology systems, our systems are vulnerable to damages from any number of sources, including computer viruses, unauthorized access, energy blackouts, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication failures.  Any system failure or accident that causes interruptions in our operations could result in a material disruption to our business.  We may also incur additional costs to remedy damages caused by such disruptions.

The occurrence of cyber incidents, or a deficiency in our cybersecurity, could negatively impact our business by causing a disruption to our operations, a compromise or corruption of our confidential information, and/or damage to our business relationships, all of which could negatively impact our financial results.

A cyber incident is considered to be any adverse event that threatens the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of our information resources. More specifically, a cyber incident is an intentional attack or an unintentional event that can include gaining unauthorized access to systems to disrupt operations, corrupt data, or steal confidential information. As our reliance on technology has increased, so have the risks posed to our systems, both internal and those we have outsourced. Our three primary risks that could directly result from the occurrence of a cyber incident include operational interruption, damage to our relationship with our tenants, and private data exposure.  We have implemented processes, procedures and controls to help mitigate these risks, but these measures, as well as our increased awareness of a risk of a cyber incident, do not guarantee that our financial results will not be negatively impacted by such an incident.

We may incur costs to comply with environmental laws.

Our operations and properties are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations concerning the protection of the environment including air and water quality, hazardous or toxic substances and health and safety.  Under some environmental laws, a current or previous owner or operator of real estate may be required to investigate and clean up hazardous or toxic substances released at a property.  The owner or operator may also be held liable to a governmental entity or to third parties for property damage or personal injuries and for investigation and clean-up costs incurred by those parties because of the contamination.  These laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of the release of the substances or caused such release.  The presence of contamination or the failure to remediate contamination may impair our ability to sell or lease real estate or to borrow using the real estate as collateral.  Other laws and regulations govern indoor and outdoor air quality including those that can require the abatement or removal of asbestos-containing materials in the event of damage, demolition, renovation or remodeling and also govern emissions of and exposure to asbestos fibers in the air.  The maintenance and removal of lead paint and certain electrical equipment containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and underground storage tanks are also regulated by federal and state laws.  We are also subject to risks associated with human exposure to chemical or biological contaminants such as molds, pollens, viruses and bacteria which, above certain levels, can be alleged to be connected to allergic or other health effects and symptoms in susceptible individuals.  We could incur fines for environmental compliance and be held liable for the costs of remedial action with respect to the foregoing regulated substances or tanks or related claims arising out of environmental contamination or human exposure at or from our properties.

In July 2006, we discovered an oil spill at our Kings Plaza Regional Shopping Center.  We have notified the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“NYSDEC”) about the spill and have developed a remediation plan. The NYSDEC has approved a portion of the remediation plan and clean up is ongoing.  The estimated costs associated with the clean up will aggregate approximately $2,500,000.  We have paid $500,000 of such amount and the remainder is covered under our insurance policy.

Each of our properties has been subjected to varying degrees of environmental assessment at various times.  Except as referenced above, the environmental assessments did not, as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, reveal any environmental condition material to our business.  However, identification of new compliance concerns or undiscovered areas of contamination, changes in the extent or known scope of contamination, discovery of additional sites, human exposure to the contamination or changes in cleanup or compliance requirements could result in significant costs to us.

Some of our potential losses may not be covered by insurance.

We maintain general liability insurance with limits of $300,000,000 per occurrence and all-risk property and rental value insurance coverage with limits of $1.7 billion per occurrence, including coverage for terrorist acts, with sub-limits for certain perils such as floods and earthquakes on each of our properties.

In June 2011, we formed Fifty Ninth Street Insurance Company, LLC (“FNSIC”), a wholly owned consolidated subsidiary, to act as insurer for coverage for acts of terrorism, including nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological (“NBCR”) acts, as defined by the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007 (“TRIPRA”).  Coverage for acts of terrorism (including NBCR acts) is up to $1.7 billion per occurrence.  Coverage for acts of terrorism (excluding NBCR acts) is fully reinsured by third party insurance companies with no exposure to FNSIC.  For NBCR acts, FNSIC is responsible for a $275,000 deductible and 15% of the balance of a covered loss and the Federal government is responsible for the remaining 85% of a covered loss.  We are ultimately responsible for any loss borne by FNSIC.

There can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain similar levels of insurance coverage in the future in amounts and on terms that are commercially reasonable.  We are responsible for deductibles and losses in excess of our insurance coverage, which could be material.

Our mortgage loans are non-recourse to us, except for $75,000,000 of the $320,000,000 mortgage on our 731 Lexington Avenue property, in the event of a substantial casualty, as defined.  Our mortgage loans contain customary covenants requiring us to maintain insurance.  If lenders insist on greater coverage than we are able to obtain, it could adversely affect our ability to finance our properties.

Compliance or failure to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act or other safety regulations and requirements could result in substantial costs.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) generally requires that public buildings, including our properties, meet certain federal requirements related to access and use by disabled persons.  Noncompliance could result in the imposition of fines by the federal government or the award of damages to private litigants.  If, under the ADA, we are required to make substantial alterations and capital expenditures in one or more of our properties, including the removal of access barriers, it could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations, as well as the amount of cash available for distribution to stockholders.

Our properties are subject to various federal, state and local regulatory requirements, such as state and local fire and life safety requirements.  If we fail to comply with these requirements, we could incur fines or private damage awards.  We do not know whether existing requirements will change or whether compliance with future requirements will require significant unanticipated expenditures that will affect our cash flow and results of operations.

A decision to dispose of real estate assets would change the holding period assumption in our valuation analyses, which could result in material impairment losses and adversely affect our financial results.

We evaluate real estate assets for impairment based on the projected cash flow of the asset over our anticipated holding period.  If we change our intended holding period, due to our intention to sell or otherwise dispose of an asset, then under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, we must reevaluate whether that asset is impaired.  Depending on the carrying value of the property at the time we change our intention and the amount that we estimate we would receive on disposal, we may record an impairment loss that would adversely affect our financial results. This loss could be material to our results of operations in the period that it is recognized.

OUR INVESTMENTS ARE CONCENTRATED IN THE GREATER NEW YORK CITY METROPOLITAN AREA. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING THIS AREA GENERALLY COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR BUSINESS.

All of our properties are in the greater New York City metropolitan area and are affected by the economic cycles and risks inherent in that area.

All of our revenues come from properties located in the greater New York City metropolitan area.  Real estate markets are subject to economic downturns and we cannot predict how economic conditions will impact this market in either the short or long term.  Declines in the economy or declines in the real estate market in this area could hurt our financial performance and the value of our properties.  The factors affecting economic conditions in this area include:

·      financial performance and productivity of the publishing, advertising, financial, technology, retail, insurance and real estate industries;

·      unemployment levels;

·      business layoffs or downsizing;

·      industry slowdowns;

·      relocations of businesses;

·      changing demographics;

·      increased telecommuting and use of alternative work places;

·      infrastructure quality; and

·      any oversupply of, or reduced demand for, real estate.

It is impossible for us to assess the future effects of trends in the economic and investment climates of the greater New York City metropolitan region, and more generally of the United States, on the real estate market in this area.  Local, national or global economic downturns, would negatively affect our business and profitability.

Terrorist attacks, such as those of September 11, 2001 in New York City, may adversely affect the value of our properties and our ability to generate cash flow.

All of our properties are located in the greater New York City metropolitan area.  In the aftermath of a terrorist attack, tenants in this area may choose to relocate their businesses to less populated, lower-profile areas of the United States that are not as likely to be targets of future terrorist activity and fewer customers may choose to patronize businesses in this area.  This would trigger a decrease in the demand for space in these markets, which could increase vacancies in our properties and force us to lease our properties on less favorable terms.  As a result, the value of our properties and the level of our revenues could decline materially.

We are subject to risks that affect the general retail environment.

A substantial portion of our properties are in the retail shopping center real estate market.  This means that we are subject to factors that affect the retail environment generally, including the level of consumer spending and consumer confidence, unemployment rates, the threat of terrorism and increasing competition from discount retailers, outlet malls, retail websites and catalog companies.  These factors could adversely affect the financial condition of our retail tenants and the willingness of retailers to lease space in our shopping centers. 

WE MAY ACQUIRE OR SELL ASSETS OR DEVELOP PROPERTIES.  OUR FAILURE OR INABILITY TO CONSUMMATE THESE TRANSACTIONS OR MANAGE THESE TRANSACTIONS COULD ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL RESULTS.

We may acquire or develop properties and this may create risks.

Although our stated business strategy is not to engage in acquisitions, we may acquire or develop properties when we believe that an acquisition or development project is otherwise consistent with our business strategy.  We may not, however, succeed in consummating desired acquisitions or in completing developments on time or within budget.  In addition, we may face competition in pursuing acquisition or development opportunities that could increase our costs.  When we do pursue a project or acquisition, we may not succeed in leasing newly-developed or acquired properties at rents sufficient to cover costs of acquisition or development and operations.  Difficulties in integrating acquisitions may prove costly or time-consuming and could divert management’s attention.  Acquisitions or developments in new markets or types of properties where we do not have the same level of market knowledge may result in weaker than anticipated performance.  We may abandon acquisition or development opportunities that we have begun pursuing and consequently fail to recover expenses already incurred and have devoted management time to a matter not consummated. 

It may be difficult to buy and sell real estate quickly, which may limit our flexibility.

Real estate investments are relatively difficult to buy and sell quickly.  Consequently, we may have limited ability to vary our portfolio promptly in response to changes in economic or other conditions.  Moreover, our ability to buy, sell, or finance real estate assets may be adversely affected during periods of uncertainty or unfavorable conditions in the credit markets as we, or potential buyers of our assets, may experience difficulty in obtaining financing.

OUR ORGANIZATIONAL AND FINANCIAL STRUCTURE GIVES RISE TO OPERATIONAL AND FINANCIAL RISKS.

We depend on dividends and distributions from our direct and indirect subsidiaries.  The creditors of these subsidiaries are entitled to amounts payable to them by the subsidiaries before the subsidiaries may pay any dividends or distributions to us.

Substantially all of our properties and assets are held through our subsidiaries.  We depend on cash distributions and dividends from our subsidiaries for substantially all of our cash flow.  The creditors of each of our direct and indirect subsidiaries are entitled to payment of that subsidiary’s obligations to them when due and payable before that subsidiary may make distributions or dividends to us.  Thus, our ability to pay dividends, if any, to our security holders depends on our subsidiaries’ ability to first satisfy their obligations to their creditors and our ability to satisfy our obligations, if any, to our creditors.

In addition, our participation in any distribution of the assets of any of our direct or indirect subsidiaries upon the liquidation, reorganization or insolvency of the subsidiary, is only after the claims of the creditors, including trade creditors, and preferred security holders, if any, of the applicable direct or indirect subsidiaries are satisfied.

Our existing financing documents contain covenants and restrictions that may restrict our operational and financial flexibility.

At December 31, 2011, substantially all of the individual properties we own were encumbered by mortgages.  These mortgages contain covenants that limit our ability to incur additional indebtedness on these properties, provide for lender approval of tenants’ leases in certain circumstances, and provide for yield maintenance or defeasance premiums to prepay them.  These mortgages may significantly restrict our operational and financial flexibility.  In addition, if we were to fail to perform our obligations under existing indebtedness or become insolvent or were liquidated, secured creditors would be entitled to payment in full from the proceeds of the sale of the pledged assets prior to any proceeds being paid to other creditors or to any holders of our securities.  In such an event, it is possible that we would have insufficient assets remaining to make payments to other creditors or to any holders of our securities. 

We have outstanding debt, and the amount of debt and its cost may increase and refinancing may not be available on acceptable terms.

As of December 31, 2011, total debt outstanding was $1,330,932,000.  Our ratio of total debt to total enterprise value was 49.0% at December 31, 2011.  “Enterprise value” means the market equity value of our common stock, plus debt, less cash and cash equivalents at such date.  In addition, we have significant debt service obligations.  For the year ended December 31, 2011, our scheduled cash payments for principal and interest were $68,785,000.  In the future, we may incur additional debt, and thus increase the ratio of total debt to total enterprise value.  If our level of indebtedness increases, there may be an increased risk of default which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.  In addition, in a rising interest rate environment, the cost of refinancing our existing debt and any new debt or market rate security or instrument may increase.  Continued uncertainty in the equity and credit markets may negatively impact our ability to obtain financing on reasonable terms or at all, which may negatively affect our ability to refinance our debt .   

We might fail to qualify or remain qualified as a REIT, and may be required to pay income taxes at corporate rates.

Although we believe that we will remain organized and will continue to operate so as to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we might fail to remain qualified.  Our qualification as a REIT for federal income tax purposes is governed by highly technical and complex provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) for which there are only limited judicial or administrative interpretations.  Our qualification as a REIT also depends on various facts and circumstances that are not entirely within our control.  In addition, legislation, new regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions might significantly change the tax laws with respect to the requirements for qualification as a REIT or the federal income tax consequences of qualifying as a REIT.

If, with respect to any taxable year, we fail to maintain our qualification as a REIT and do not qualify under statutory relief provisions, we could not deduct distributions to stockholders in computing our taxable income and would have to pay federal income tax on our taxable income at regular corporate rates. The federal income tax payable would include any applicable alternative minimum tax. If we had to pay federal income tax, the amount of money available to distribute to stockholders and pay our indebtedness would be reduced for the year or years involved, and we would no longer be required to make distributions to stockholders. In addition, we would also be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which qualification was lost, unless we were entitled to relief under the relevant statutory provisions. Although we currently intend to operate in a manner designed to allow us to qualify as a REIT, future economic, market, legal, tax or other considerations may cause us to revoke the REIT election or fail to qualify as a REIT.

We face possible adverse changes in tax laws, which may result in an increase in our tax liability.

From time to time changes in state and local tax laws or regulations are enacted, which may result in an increase in our tax liability.  The shortfall in tax revenues for states and municipalities in recent years may lead to an increase in the frequency and size of such changes.  If such changes occur, we may be required to pay additional taxes on our assets or income.  These increased tax costs could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations and the amount of cash available for payment of dividends.

Loss of our key personnel could harm our operations and adversely affect the value of our common stock.

We are dependent on the efforts of Steven Roth, our Chief Executive Officer, and Michael D. Fascitelli, our President.  Although we believe that we could find replacements for these key personnel, the loss of their services could harm our operations and adversely affect the value of our common stock.

ALEXANDER’S CHARTER DOCUMENTS AND APPLICABLE LAW MAY HINDER ANY ATTEMPT TO ACQUIRE US.

Provisions in Alexander’s certificate of incorporation and by laws, as well as provisions of the Code and Delaware corporate law, may delay or prevent a change in control of the Company or a tender offer, even if such action might be beneficial to stockholders, and limit the stockholders’ opportunity to receive a potential premium for their shares of common stock over then prevailing market prices.

Primarily to facilitate maintenance of its qualification as a REIT, Alexander’s certificate of incorporation generally prohibits ownership, directly, indirectly or beneficially, by any single stockholder of more than 9.9% of the outstanding shares of preferred stock of any class or 4.9% of outstanding common stock of any class.  The Board of Directors may waive or modify these ownership limits with respect to one or more persons if it is satisfied that ownership in excess of these limits will not jeopardize Alexander’s status as a REIT for federal income tax purposes.  In addition, the Board of Directors has, subject to certain conditions and limitations, exempted Vornado and certain of its affiliates from these ownership limitations.  Stock owned in violation of these ownership limits will be subject to the loss of rights and other restrictions.  These ownership limits may have the effect of inhibiting or impeding a change in control.

Alexander’s Board of Directors is divided into three classes of directors.  Directors of each class are chosen for three-year staggered terms.  Staggered terms of directors may have the effect of delaying or preventing changes in control or management, even though changes in management or a change in control might be in the best interest of our stockholders.

In addition, Alexander’s charter documents authorize the Board of Directors to:

·      cause Alexander’s to issue additional authorized but unissued common stock or preferred stock;

·      classify or reclassify, in one or more series, any unissued preferred stock;

·      set the preferences, rights and other terms of any classified or reclassified stock that Alexander’s issues; and

·      increase, without stockholder approval, the number of shares of beneficial interest that Alexander’s may issue.

The Board of Directors could establish a series of preferred stock with terms that could delay, deter or prevent a change in control of Alexander’s or other transaction that might involve a premium price or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders, although the Board of Directors does not, at present, intend to establish a series of preferred stock of this kind.  Alexander’s charter documents contain other provisions that may delay, deter or prevent a change in control of the Company or other transaction that might involve a premium price or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

In addition, Vornado, Interstate and its three general partners (each of whom are both trustees of Vornado and Directors of Alexander’s) together beneficially own approximately 59.6% of our outstanding shares of common stock.  This degree of ownership is likely to reduce the possibility of a tender offer or an attempt to change control of the Company by a third party.

We may change our policies without obtaining the approval of our stockholders.

Our operating and financial policies, including our policies with respect to acquisitions of real estate or other assets, growth, operations, indebtedness, capitalization and dividends, are exclusively determined by our Board of Directors.  Accordingly, our stockholders do not control these policies.

OUR OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE AND RELATED-PARTY TRANSACTIONS MAY GIVE RISE TO CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.

Steven Roth, Vornado and Interstate may exercise substantial influence over us.  They and some of our other directors and officers have interests or positions in other entities that may compete with us.

At December 31, 2011, Interstate and its partners owned approximately 6.3% of the common shares of beneficial interest of Vornado and approximately 27.2% of our outstanding common stock.  Steven Roth, David Mandelbaum and Russell B. Wight, Jr. are the partners of Interstate.  Mr. Roth is the Chairman of our Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Vornado and the Managing General Partner of Interstate.  Mr. Wight and Mr. Mandelbaum are both trustees of Vornado and members of our Board of Directors.  In addition, Vornado manages and leases the real estate assets of Interstate.

At December 31, 2011, Vornado owned 32.4% of our outstanding common stock, in addition to the 27.2% owned by Interstate and its partners.  In addition to the relationships described in the immediately preceding paragraph, Michael D. Fascitelli, President and Chief Executive Officer of Vornado, is our President and a member of our Board of Directors. Dr. Richard West is a trustee of Vornado and a member of our Board of Directors.  Joseph Macnow, our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, holds the same position with Vornado.

Because of their overlapping interests, Vornado, Mr. Roth, Interstate and the other individuals noted in the preceding paragraphs may have substantial influence over Alexander’s, and on the outcome of any matters submitted to Alexander’s stockholders for approval.  In addition, certain decisions concerning our operations or financial structure may present conflicts of interest among Vornado, Messrs. Roth, Mandelbaum and Wight and Interstate and other security holders.  Vornado, Mr. Roth and Interstate may, in the future, engage in a wide variety of activities in the real estate business which may result in conflicts of interest with respect to matters affecting us, such as, which of these entities or persons, if any, may take advantage of potential business opportunities, the business focus of these entities, the types of properties and geographic locations in which these entities make investments, potential competition between business activities conducted, or sought to be conducted, by us, competition for properties and tenants, possible corporate transactions such as acquisitions, and other strategic decisions affecting the future of these entities.

There may be conflicts of interest between Vornado, its affiliates and us.

Vornado manages, develops and leases our properties under agreements that have one-year terms expiring in March of each year, which are automatically renewable.  Because we share common senior management with Vornado and because five of the trustees of Vornado also constitute the majority of our directors, the terms of the foregoing agreements and any future agreements may not be comparable to those we could have negotiated with an unaffiliated third party.

For a description of Interstate’s ownership of Vornado and Alexander’s, see “Steven Roth, Vornado and Interstate may exercise substantial influence over us.  They and some of our other directors and officers have interests or positions in other entities that may compete with us.” above.

THE NUMBER OF SHARES OF ALEXANDER’S COMMON STOCK AND THE MARKET FOR THOSE SHARES GIVE RISE TO VARIOUS RISKS.

The price of our common shares has been volatile and may fluctuate.

The trading price of our common shares has been volatile and may continue to fluctuate widely as a result of a number of factors, many of which are outside of our control.  In addition, the stock market is subject to fluctuations in the share prices and trading volumes that affect the market prices of the shares of many companies.  These broad market fluctuations have in the past and may in the future adversely affect the market price of our common shares.  Among the factors that could affect the price of our common shares are:

·          our financial condition and performance;

·          the financial condition of our tenants, including the extent of tenant bankruptcies or defaults;

·          actual or anticipated quarterly fluctuations in our operating results and financial condition;

·          our dividend policy;

·          the reputation of REITs and real estate investments generally and the attractiveness of REIT equity securities in comparison to other equity securities, including securities issued by other real estate companies, and fixed income securities;

·          uncertainly and volatility in the equity and credit markets;

·          changes in revenue or earnings estimates or publication of research reports and recommendations by financial analysts or actions taken by rating agencies with respect to our securities or those of other real estate investment trusts;

·          failure to meet analysts’ revenue or earnings estimates;

·          speculation in the press or investment community;

·          strategic actions by us or our competitors, such as acquisitions or restructurings;

·          the extent of institutional investor interest in us;

·          the extent of short-selling of our common shares and the shares of our competitors;

·          fluctuations in the stock price and operating results of our competitors;

·          general financial and economic market conditions and, in particular, developments related to market conditions for real estate investment trusts and other real estate related companies;

·          domestic and international economic factors unrelated to our performance; and

·          all other risk factors addressed elsewhere in this annual report on form 10-K.

A significant decline in our stock price could result in substantial losses for stockholders.

Alexander’s has additional shares of its common stock available for future issuance, which could decrease the market price of the common stock currently outstanding.

The interest of our current stockholders could be diluted if we issue additional equity securities.  As of December 31, 2011, we had authorized but unissued 4,826,550 shares of common stock, par value of $1.00 per share and 3,000,000 shares of preferred stock, par value $1.00 per share; of which, 1,048 shares are reserved for issuance upon redemption of the deferred stock units previously granted to our Board of Directors.  In addition, 893,952 shares are available for future grant under the terms of our 2006 Omnibus Stock Plan.  These awards may be granted in the form of options, restricted stock, SARs or other equity-based interests, and if granted, would reduce that number of shares available for future grants, provided however that an award that may be settled only in cash, would not reduce the number of shares available under the plan.  We cannot predict the impact that future issuances of common or preferred stock or any exercise of outstanding options or grants of additional equity-based interests would have on the market price of our common stock.

Increased market interest rates may hurt the value of our common shares.

We believe that investors consider the dividend rate on REIT shares, expressed as a percentage of the price of the shares, relative to market interest rates as an important factor in deciding whether to buy or sell the shares. If market interest rates go up, prospective purchasers of REIT shares may expect a higher dividend rate. Higher interest rates would likely increase our borrowing costs and might decrease funds available for distribution. Thus, higher market interest rates could cause the market price of our common shares to decline.