Item 1A. RISK FACTORS.

The following factors and other factors discussed in this Annual Report on Form 10-K could cause our actual results to differ materially from those contained in forward-looking statements made in this Annual Report on Form 10-K or presented elsewhere in future Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) reports or statements made by our management from time to time. These factors may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, operating results and cash flows, and should be carefully considered. We may update these factors in our future periodic reports.

The economic performance and value of our shopping centers are dependent on many factors.

The economic performance and value of our shopping centers are dependent on various factors. Additionally, these same factors will influence our decision on whether to go forward on the development of new shopping centers, acquisitions and dispositions, and may also affect the ultimate economic performance and value of projects under construction and acquired shopping centers. Adverse changes in the economic performance and value of our shopping centers would also adversely affect our income and cash available to pay dividends.

Such factors include:

These factors may ultimately impact the valuation of certain long-lived or intangible assets that are subject to impairment testing, potentially resulting in impairment charges, which may be material to our financial condition or results of operations. See "MD&A - Application of Critical Accounting Policies and New Accounting Pronouncements - Valuation of Shopping Centers" for additional information regarding impairment testing.

In addition, the value and performance of our shopping centers may be adversely affected by certain other factors discussed below including the state of the capital markets, expansion in Asia, unscheduled closings or bankruptcies of our anchors and tenants, competition, uninsured losses, the impact of technology on consumer spending, and environmental liabilities.

We are in a competitive business.

There are numerous shopping facilities that compete with our properties in attracting retailers to lease space. Our ability to attract tenants to our shopping centers and lease space is important to our success, and difficulties in doing so can materially impact our shopping centers' performance. The existence of competing shopping centers could have a material adverse impact on our ability to develop or operate shopping centers, lease space to desirable anchors and tenants, and on the level of rents that can be achieved. In addition, retailers at our properties face continued competition from shopping through various means and channels, including via the internet, lifestyle centers, value and outlet malls, wholesale and discount shopping clubs, and television shopping networks. Competition of this type could adversely affect our revenues and cash available for distribution to shareholder s.

As new technologies emerge, the relationship among customers, retailers, and shopping centers are evolving on a rapid basis and we may not be able to adapt to such new technologies and relationships on a timely basis. Our relative size may limit the capital and resources we are willing to allocate to invest in strategic technology to enhance the mall experience, which may make our shopping centers relatively less desirable to anchors, mall tenants, and consumers. Additionally, a small but increasing number of tenants utilize our shopping centers as showrooms or as part of an omni-channel strategy (allowing customers to shop seamlessly through various sales channels). As a result, customers may make purchases through other sales channels during or immediately after visiting our shopping centers, with such sales not being captured currently in our tenant sales figures or monetized in our minimum or overage rents.

We compete with other major real estate investors with significant capital for attractive investment opportunities. These competitors include other REITs, investment banking firms, and private and institutional investors, some of whom have greater financial resources or have different investment criteria than we do. In particular, there is competition to acquire, develop, or redevelop highly productive retail properties. This could become even more severe as competitors gain size and economies of scale as a result of merger and consolidation activity. This competition may impair our ability to acquire, develop, or redevelop suitable properties, and to attract key retailers, on favorable terms in the future.

Our real estate investments are relatively illiquid.

We may be limited in our ability to vary our portfolio in response to changes in economic, market, or other conditions by restrictions on transfer imposed by our partners or lenders. If we were unable to refinance our debt at a shopping center, we may be required to contribute capital to repay debt, fund capital spending, or other cash requirements. In addition, under TRG ’s partnership agreement, upon the sale of a center or TRG ’s interest in a center, TRG may be required to distribute to its partners all or a portion of the cash proceeds received by TRG from such sale (a special distribution). If TRG made such a distribution, the sale proceeds would not be available to finance TRG ’s activities, and the sale of a center may result in a decrease in funds generated by continuing operations and in distributions to TRG ’s partners, including us. Further, pursuant to TRG ’s partnership agreement, TRG may not dispose or encumber certain of its shopping centers or its interest in such shopping centers, specifically Beverly Center, Cherry Creek Shopping Center, Twelve Oaks Mall, The Mall at Short Hills, or Stamford Town Center, without the consent of a majority-in-interest of its partners other than TCO , which is currently held by members of the Taubman Family.

We may acquire or develop new properties and/or redevelop and expand our existing properties, and these activities are subject to various risks.

We pursue development, redevelopment, expansion, and acquisition activities as opportunities arise, and these activities are subject to the following risks:

Certain of our projects represent the retail portion of larger mixed-use projects. As a result, there may be certain additional risks associated with such projects, including:

In addition, economic, market, and other conditions may reduce viable development and acquisition opportunities in the U.S. that meet our unlevered return requirements in the short to intermediate horizon. As a result, we anticipate focusing on strategic repurposing of shopping centers (including potential repurposing of certain anchor stores).

Clauses in leases with certain tenants of our development or redevelopment properties include inducements, such as reduced rent and tenant allowance payments, that can reduce our rents, Funds from Operations (FFO), and/or returns achieved. The leases for a number of the tenants that have opened stores at properties we have developed or redeveloped have reduced rent from co-tenancy clauses that allow those tenants to pay reduced rent until occupancy at the respective property reaches certain thresholds and/or certain named co-tenants open stores at the respective property. Additionally, some tenants may have rent abatement clauses that delay rent commencement for a prolonged period of time after initial occupancy. The effect of these clauses reduces our rents and FFO while they are applicable. We expect to continue to offer co-tenancy and rent abatement clauses in the future to attract tenants to our development and redevelopment properties. As a result, our current and future development and redevelopment properties are more likely to achieve lower returns during their stabilization periods than other projects of this nature historically have, which may adversely impact our investment in such developments, as well as our financial condition and results of operations.

Dispositions may not achieve anticipated results.

We actively maintain a strategy of recycling capital to achieve growth over time. At times this strategy may include strategically disposing of assets, or partial interests in assets, to improve the overall performance of our core mall portfolio, measured by: achieving improved portfolio metrics, demographics, and operating statistics, such as higher sales productivity and occupancy rates; accelerating future growth targets in our operating results and FFO; strengthening of our balance sheet; and creating increased net asset value for our shareholder s over time. However, we may not achieve some or all of the targeted results we originally anticipated at the time of disposition. If we are not successful at achieving the anticipated results from any disposition, there is potential for a significant adverse impact on our returns and our overall profitability. We may not be able to achieve certain desired cap rates related to dispositions of assets, or partial interests in assets, due to general economic reasons or, in cases of lower productivity malls, the perception of over-capacity of such malls in the U.S.

We hold investments in joint ventures in which we do not control all decisions, and we may have conflicts of interest with our joint venture partners.

Some of our shopping centers and shopping center projects are partially owned by non-affiliated partners through joint venture arrangements. As a result, we do not control all decisions regarding those shopping centers and may be required to take actions that are in the interest of the joint venture partners but not our best interests. Accordingly, we may not be able to favorably resolve any issues that arise with respect to such decisions, or we may have to provide financial or other inducements to our joint venture partners to obtain such resolution.

For our unconsolidated joint ventures, we do not necessarily control decisions as to the design or operation of internal controls over accounting and financial reporting, including those relating to maintenance of accounting records, authorization of receipts and disbursements, selection and application of accounting policies, reviews of period-end financial reporting, and safeguarding of assets. Therefore, we are exposed to increased risk that such controls may not be designed or operating effectively, which could ultimately affect the accuracy of financial information related to these joint ventures as prepared by our joint venture partners.

Various restrictive provisions and rights govern sales or transfers of interests in our joint ventures. These may work to our disadvantage because, among other things, we may be required to make decisions as to the purchase or sale of interests in our joint ventures at a time that is disadvantageous to us.

In our joint ventures, we may partner with entities with whom we do not have a historical business relationship and therefore there is additional risk in working through operational, financial, and other issues.

Investors are cautioned that deriving our beneficial interest in a joint venture as our ownership interest in individual financial statement items of that joint venture may not accurately depict the legal and economic implications of holding a noncontrolling interest in it.

Our business activities and pursuit of new opportunities in Asia may pose unique risks.

We have offices in Hong Kong, Seoul, Beijing, and Shanghai and we are pursuing and evaluating investment opportunities in various locations across Asia. We have invested in four joint ventures to develop and operate shopping centers in Asia and may invest in other shopping centers in the future. In addition, we provide management and advisory services for third parties. In addition to the general risks described in this report, our international activities are subject to unique risks, including:

In addition, any significant or prolonged deterioration in U.S.-China relations could adversely affect our China business. Certain risks and uncertainties of doing business in China are solely within the control of the Chinese government, and Chinese law regulates the scope of our foreign investments and business conducted within China.

In regards to foreign currency, our projects in China and South Korea require investments and have, and may in the future require debt financing denominated in foreign currencies, with the possibility that such investments will be greater than anticipated depending on changes in exchange rates. These projects could also generate returns on or of capital in foreign currencies that could ultimately be less than anticipated as a result of exchange rates. As part of investing in these projects, we are implementing appropriate risk management policies and practices, including the consideration of hedging of foreign currency risks. However, developing an effective foreign currency risk strategy is complex and may be costly, and no strategy can completely insulate us from risk associated with foreign currency fluctuations. Further, we cannot provide assurance that such policies and practices will be successful and/or that the applicable accounting for foreign currency hedges will be favorable to any particular period's results of operations.

As we expand our international activities and levels of investment, these risks could increase in significance and adversely affect our financial returns on international projects and services and overall financial condition. We have put in place policies, practices, and systems for mitigating some of these international risks, although we cannot provide assurance that we will be entirely successful in doing so.

We could be subject to liability, penalties and other sanctions and other adverse consequences arising out of non-compliance with the FCPA or foreign anti-corruption laws.

We are subject to the FCPA, which generally prohibits U.S. companies from engaging in bribery or other prohibited payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business, and which requires proper record keeping and characterization of payments we make in our reports filed with the SEC. Although we have policies and procedures designed to promote compliance with the FCPA and other anti-corruption laws, we cannot provide assurance that we will continue to be found to be operating in compliance with, or be able to detect violations of, any such laws or regulations. We cannot provide assurance that these policies and procedures will protect us from intentional, reckless or negligent acts committed by our employees, agents, partners, or others acting on our behalf. If our employees, agents, partners, or others acting on our behalf are found to have engaged in such practices, severe penalties and other consequences could be imposed. Those penalties and consequences that may be imposed against us or individuals in appropriate circumstances include, but are not limited to, injunctive relief, disgorgement, significant fines and penalties, and modifications to business practices and compliance programs. In addition, we cannot predict the nature, scope, or effect of future regulatory requirements or investigations to which our international operations might be subject, the manner in which existing laws might be administered or interpreted, or the potential that we may face regulatory sanctions. Any of these violations or remedial measures, if applicable to us, could have a material adverse impact on our business, reputation, results of operations, cash flow, financial condition, liquidity, ability to make distributions to our shareholder s, or the value of our investments.

Foreign companies, including some that may compete with us, may not be subject to the FCPA or other anti-corruption laws. Accordingly, such companies may be more likely to engage in activities prohibited by the FCPA or other anti-corruption laws, which could have a significant adverse impact on our returns or our ability to compete for business in such countries.

      

The bankruptcy, early termination, sales performance, or closing of our tenants and anchors could adversely affect us.

We could be adversely affected by the bankruptcy, early termination, sales performance, or closing of tenants and anchors. Certain of our lease agreements include co-tenancy and/or sales-based kick-out provisions which allow a tenant to pay a reduced rent amount and, in certain instances, terminate the lease, if we fail to maintain certain occupancy levels or retain specified named anchors, or if the tenant does not achieve certain specified sales targets. If occupancy or tenant sales do not meet or fall below certain thresholds, rents we are entitled to receive from our retail tenants could be reduced. The bankruptcy of a mall tenant could result in the termination of its lease, which would lower the amount of cash generated by that shopping mall. Replacing mall tenants with better performing, emerging retailers may take longer than our historical experience of re-tenanting due to their lack of infrastructure and limited experience in opening stores as well as the significant competition for such emerging brands, which may require us to pay significant tenant allowances or offer reduced rents as an inducement. In addition, if a department store operating as an anchor at one of our shopping centers were to cease operating, we may experience difficulty and delay and incur significant expense in replacing the anchor, re-tenanting, or otherwise re-merchandising the use of the anchor space. In addition, the anchor’s closing may lead to reduced customer traffic and lower mall tenant sales. As a result, we may also experience difficulty or delay in leasing spaces in areas adjacent to the vacant anchor space. The early termination or closing of mall tenants or anchors for reasons other than bankruptcy could have a similar impact on the operations of our shopping centers, although in the case of early terminations we may benefit in the short-term from lease cancellation income (See "MD&A – Rental Rates and Occupancy").

Most recently, certain traditional department stores have experienced challenges including, limited opportunities for new investment/openings, declining sales, and store closures. Department stores' market share is declining, and their ability to drive traffic has substantially decreased. Despite our shopping centers traditionally being driven by department store anchors, in the event of a need for replacement, it may be necessary to consider non-department store anchors. Certain of these non-department store anchors may demand higher allowances than a standard mall tenant due to the nature of the services/products they provide (for example, restaurants, entertainment, or luxury).

Capital markets may limit our sources of funds for financing activities.

Our ability to access the capital markets may be restricted at a time when we would like, or need, to access those markets. This could have an impact on our flexibility to react to changing economic and business conditions. A lack of available credit, lack of confidence in the financial sector, increased volatility in the financial markets and reduced business activity could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to obtain and manage our liquidity. In addition, the cost of debt financing and the proceeds may be materially adversely impacted by such market conditions. Also, our ability to access equity markets as a source of funds may be affected by our stock price as well as general market conditions.

We are obligated to comply with financial and other covenants that could affect our operating activities.

Certain loan agreements contain various restrictive covenants, including the following corporate covenants on our primary unsecured revolving line of credit, as well as the $300 million and $250 million unsecured term loans and the loan on International Market Place: a minimum net worth requirement, a maximum total leverage ratio, a maximum secured leverage ratio, a minimum fixed charge coverage ratio, a maximum recourse secured debt ratio, and a maximum payout ratio. In addition, our primary unsecured revolving line of credit and unsecured term loans have unencumbered pool covenants, which currently apply to Beverly Center, Dolphin Mall, and The Gardens on El Paseo on a combined basis. These covenants include a minimum number and minimum value of eligible unencumbered assets, a maximum unencumbered leverage ratio, a minimum unencumbered interest coverage ratio, and a minimum unencumbered asset occupancy ratio. As of December 31, 2018 , the corporate total leverage ratio was the most restrictive covenant. These covenants may restrict our ability to pursue certain business initiatives or certain transactions that might otherwise be advantageous. In addition, these covenants may limit our ability to borrow up to the $1.1 billion facility on our primary unsecured revolving line of credit. Failure to meet certain of these financial covenants could cause an event of default under and/or accelerate some or all of such indebtedness which could have a material effect on us.

TRG guarantees debt or otherwise provides support for a number of joint venture properties.

Joint venture debt is the liability of the joint venture and the joint venture property is typically encumbered by a mortgage or construction financing. A default by a joint venture under its debt obligations may expose us to liability under a guaranty (see "Note 8 - Notes Payable, Net - Debt Covenants and Guarantees" to our consolidated financial statements for more details on loan guarantees). We may elect to fund cash needs of a joint venture through equity contributions (generally on a basis proportionate to our ownership interests), advances, or partner loans, although these means of funding are not typically required contractually or otherwise.

Our hedging interest rate protection arrangements may not effectively limit our interest rate risk exposure.

We manage our exposure to interest rate risk through a combination of interest rate protection agreements to effectively fix or cap a portion of our variable rate debt. Our use of interest rate hedging arrangements to manage risk associated with interest rate volatility may expose us to additional risks, including that a counterparty to a hedging arrangement may fail to honor its obligations. We enter into swaps that are exempt from the requirements of central clearing and/or trading on a designated contract market or swap execution facility pursuant to the applicable regulations and rules, and thus there may be more counterparty risk relative to others who do not utilize such exemption. Developing an effective interest rate risk strategy is complex and no strategy can completely insulate us from risks associated with interest rate fluctuations. There can be no assurance that our hedging activities will have the desired beneficial impact on our results of operations or financial condition. We might be subject to additional costs, such as transaction fees or breakage costs, if we terminate these arrangements.

We may be adversely affected by changes in LIBOR reporting practices or the method in which LIBOR is determined.

In July 2017, the Financial Conduct Authority, the authority that regulates LIBOR, announced it intends to stop compelling banks to submit rates for the calculation of LIBOR after 2021. The Alternative Reference Rates Committee (ARRC) has proposed that the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) is the rate that represents best practice as the alternative to USD-LIBOR for use in derivatives and other financial contracts that are currently indexed to USD-LIBOR. ARRC has proposed a paced market transition plan to SOFR from USD-LIBOR and organizations are currently working on industry wide and company specific transition plans as it relates to derivatives and cash markets exposed to USD-LIBOR. There is no guarantee that a transition from LIBOR to an alternative will not result in financial market disruptions, significant increases in benchmark rates, or financing costs to borrowers. We have material contracts that are indexed to USD-LIBOR and is monitoring this activity and evaluating the related risks.

Our investments are subject to credit and market risk.

We occasionally extend credit to third parties in connection with the sale of land or other transactions. We also have occasionally made investments in marketable and other equity securities. We are exposed to risk in the event the values of our investments and/or our loans decrease due to overall market conditions, business failure, and/or other nonperformance by the investees or counterparties.

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

Inflationary price increases could have an adverse effect on consumer spending, which could impact our tenants' sales and, in turn, our tenants' business operations. This could affect the amount of rent these tenants pay, in particular if their leases provide for overage rent or percentage of sales rent, and their ability to pay rent. Also, inflation could cause increases in operating expenses, which could increase occupancy costs for tenants and, to the extent that we are unable to recover operating expenses from tenants, could increase operating expenses for us. In addition, if the rate of inflation exceeds the scheduled rent increases included in our leases, then our profitability and our Net Operating Income would decrease. As of December 31, 2018 , approximately 58% of our gross leasable and occupied area included clauses in leases for rent increases based on changes in the Consumer Price Index, although we are attempting to reduce our exposure to such variable rentals as leases are negotiated or renewed.

The occurrence of cyber incidents, a deficiency in our cyber security, or a data breach 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, corrupting data, or stealing confidential information. We rely upon information technology networks and systems, some of which are managed by third-parties, to process, transmit, and store electronic information, and to manage or support a variety of business processes and activities. As our reliance on technology has increased, so have the risks posed to our systems, both internal and those we have outsourced. Primary risks that could directly result from the occurrence of a cyber incident include, but are not limited to, operational interruption, damage to our tenant relationships, private data exposure (including personally identifiable information, or proprietary and confidential information, of ours and our employees, as well as third parties), and potentially significant response costs. Any such incidents could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability or regulatory penalties under laws protecting the privacy of personal information, and reduce the benefits of our advanced technologies. We carry cyber liability insurance; however a loss could exceed the limits of the policy. We have implemented processes, procedures and controls to help mitigate these risks, but these measures, our increased awareness of a risk of a cyber incident, and our insurance coverage, do not guarantee that our financial results will not be negatively impacted by such an incident.

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

We carry liability, fire, flood, earthquake, extended coverage, and rental loss insurance on each of our properties. We believe the policy specifications and insured limits of these policies are adequate and appropriate. There are, however, some types of losses, including information technology system failures, punitive damages (in certain states), and lease and other contract claims, which generally are not insured. If an uninsured liability claim or a liability claim in excess of insured limits is made, we may have to make a payment to satisfy such claim. In addition, if an uninsured property loss or a property loss in excess of insured limits occurs, we could lose all or a portion of the capital we have invested in a property, as well as the anticipated future revenue from the property. If this happens, we might nevertheless remain obligated for any mortgage debt or other financial obligations related to the property.

In November 2002, Congress passed the "Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002" (TRIA), which required insurance companies to offer terrorism coverage to all existing insured companies for an additional cost. As a result, our property insurance policies are currently provided without a sub-limit for terrorism, eliminating the need for separate terrorism insurance policies.

In January 2015, Congress passed the "Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Authorization Act of 2015", which extended the termination date of the Terrorism Insurance Program established under the TRIA through December 31, 2020. There are specific provisions in our loans that address terrorism insurance. Simply stated, in most loans, we are obligated to maintain terrorism insurance, but there are limits on the amounts we are required to spend to obtain such coverage. If a terrorist event occurs, the cost of terrorism insurance coverage would be likely to increase, which could result in having less coverage than we have currently. Our inability to obtain such coverage, or to do so only at greatly increased costs, may also negatively impact the availability and cost of future financings.

Some of our properties are at a higher risk for potential natural or other disasters.

A number of our properties are located in areas with a higher risk of natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, or tsunamis. The occurrence of natural disasters can adversely impact operations, redevelopment, or development at our shopping centers and projects, increase investment costs to repair or replace damaged properties, increase future property insurance costs, and negatively impact the tenant demand for lease space. In addition, many of our properties are located in coastal regions, and would therefore be affected by any future increases in sea levels. If insurance is unavailable to us or is unavailable on acceptable terms, or our insurance is not adequate to cover losses from these events, our financial condition and results of operations could be adversely affected.

During September 2017, Puerto Rico was struck by Hurricane Maria, which significantly impacted local infrastructure, residents, and the prospects for tourism. The Mall of San Juan experienced damage and interruption of operations. We are subject to all of the aforementioned risks of natural disasters in relation to The Mall of San Juan and the impact of Hurricane Maria.

While we anticipate that a portion of the adverse impact to the future operations of the shopping center may be mitigated through business interruption insurance, it may not offset the full extent of revenue losses and insurance recoveries may not be received on a timely basis. In addition, certain losses may not be fully covered by insurance. The timing for the recovery of business in Puerto Rico will depend on successful rebuilding and recovery efforts and in turn the availability of workers and materials, which may be scarce for periods of time. The local economy is highly dependent on tourism and declines could continue to adversely impact the center for an extended period of time. Although overall foot traffic and tenant sales at the shopping center have improved recently, the profitability of tenant operations continue to be affected. Future occupancy and profitability of the shopping center may be impacted by (1) tenants or anchors who, despite contractual requirements, are unable or refuse to reopen, (2) the ability of tenants or anchors to pay current rent obligations in light of the decrease in sales and mall foot traffic, and (3) tenant or anchor rent, operating, and other lease obligations that are dependent on maintaining specified occupancy levels at the mall. If a major tenant or anchor does not reopen, it may adversely impact our ability to re-lease space in the future to desirable tenants or at profitable rates and maintain the overall mall merchandising plan.

We may be subject to liabilities for environmental matters.

We are subject to a variety of local, state, and federal laws concerning the protection of public health and the environment. Such environmental laws may vary according to the location and environmental condition of the site and the present and former uses of the site. Before acquiring a site, we generally engage independent environmental consultants to evaluate land for the potential presence of adverse environmental conditions, and all of the shopping centers that we presently own (not including option interests in certain pre-development projects) have been subject to such environmental assessments. We are not aware of any environmental liability relating to these shopping centers or to any other property that we have owned or operated that would have a reasonable likelihood of resulting in a material adverse effect on our business, assets, or results of operations. No assurances can be given, however, that (1) all environmental liabilities have been identified, (2) no prior owner or operator of our properties, or any occupant of our properties has not created an environmental condition not known to us, (3) future laws, ordinances, or regulations will not impose any material environmental liability, or (4) the current environmental condition of our shopping centers will not be affected by tenants or other occupants of the shopping centers, by the environmental condition of properties in the vicinity of the shopping centers (such as the presence of underground storage tanks), or by third parties unrelated to us. Environmental liability may be imposed without regard to fault, and under certain circumstances, can be joint and several, resulting in one party being held responsible for the entire obligation. In addition, the presence of, or failure to remediate, adverse environmental conditions may adversely affect our ability to sell, rent, or collateralize any property.

The bankruptcy or financial difficulties of our joint venture partners could adversely affect us.

The profitability of shopping centers held in a joint venture could be adversely affected by the bankruptcy of one of the joint venture partners if, because of certain provisions of the bankruptcy laws, we were unable to make important decisions in a timely fashion or became subject to additional liabilities. In addition, if our joint venture partners are not able to fund required contributions, it may be necessary for us to contribute equity in excess of our ownership share to fund initial development, capital, and/or operating costs.

We may not be able to maintain our status as a REIT.

We may not be able to maintain our status as a REIT for federal income tax purposes with the result that the income distributed to shareholder s would not be deductible in computing taxable income and instead would be subject to tax at regular corporate rates. Any such corporate tax liability would be significant and would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our shareholder s which, in turn, could have a material adverse impact on the value of, or trading price for, our shares. Although we believe we are organized and operate in a manner to maintain our REIT qualification, many of the REIT requirements of the Internal Revenue Code are complex and have limited judicial or administrative interpretations. Changes in tax laws or regulations or new administrative interpretations and court decisions may also affect our ability to maintain REIT status in the future. If we do not maintain our REIT status in any year, we may be unable to elect to be treated as a REIT for the next four taxable years.

Although we currently intend to maintain our status as a REIT, future economic, market, legal, tax, or other considerations may cause us to determine that it would be in our and our shareholder s’ best interests to revoke our REIT election. If we revoke our REIT election, we will not be able to elect REIT status for the next four taxable years.

We may be subject to taxes even if we qualify as a REIT.

Even if we qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we will be required to pay certain federal, state, local, and foreign taxes on our income and property. For example, we will be subject to federal income tax to the extent we distribute less than 100% of our REIT taxable income, including capital gains. Moreover, if we have net income from "prohibited transactions," that income will be subject to a 100% penalty tax. In general, prohibited transactions are sales or other dispositions of property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. The determination as to whether a particular sale is a prohibited transaction depends on the facts and circumstances related to that sale. We cannot guarantee that sales of our properties would not be prohibited transactions unless we comply with certain statutory safe-harbor provisions. The need to avoid prohibited transactions could cause us to forego or defer sales of assets that non-REITs otherwise would have sold or that might otherwise be in our best interest to sell.

In addition, any net taxable income earned directly by our taxable REIT subsidiaries will be subject to federal, state, and local corporate income tax, and to the extent there are foreign operations certain foreign taxes. Several provisions of the laws applicable to REITs and their subsidiaries ensure that a taxable REIT subsidiary will be subject to an appropriate level of federal income taxation. To that end, we will be subject to a 100% penalty tax on the amount of any rents, deductions, service income or excess interest if the economic arrangements among us, our tenants, and our taxable REIT subsidiaries are not comparable to similar arrangements among unrelated parties.

Also, some state, local, and foreign jurisdictions may tax some of our income even though as a REIT we are not subject to federal income tax on that income, because not all states, localities, and foreign jurisdictions follow the federal income tax treatment of REITs. Finally, there may be changes in the federal tax law and laws of states, localities, and foreign jurisdictions that may increase the taxes we pay. To the extent that we and our affiliates are required to pay federal, state, local, and/or foreign taxes, we will have less cash available for distributions to our shareholder s.

The lower tax rate on certain dividends from non-REIT 'C' corporations may cause investors to prefer to hold stock in non-REIT 'C' corporations.

The maximum tax rate (including the net investment income tax of 3.8%) on certain corporate dividends received by individuals is 23.8%, which is less than the maximum income tax rate enacted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the 2017 Act) of 37% applicable to ordinary income. This rate differential continues to substantially reduce the so-called "double taxation" (that is, taxation at both the corporate and shareholder levels) that applies to non-REIT 'C' corporations but does not generally apply to REITs. Dividends from a REIT do not qualify for the favorable tax rate applicable to dividends from non-REIT 'C' corporations unless the dividends are attributable to income that has already been subjected to the corporate income tax, such as income from a prior year that the REIT did not distribute and dividend income received by the REIT from a taxable REIT subsidiary or other fully taxable 'C' corporation. Under the 2017 Act, however, provided that the shareholder meets certain holding period requirements, ordinary dividends from a REIT are eligible for the 20% deduction as “qualified business income” and thus taxed at a maximum rate of 29.6% plus the 3.8% tax on net investment income. The 20% deduction and the maximum individual rate of 37%, unless extended, are scheduled to expire after 2025. Although REITs, unlike non-REIT 'C' corporations, have the ability to designate certain dividends as capital gain dividends subject to the favorable rates applicable to capital gain, the application of reduced dividend rates to non-REIT 'C' corporation dividends may still cause individual investors to view stock in non-REIT 'C' corporations as more attractive than shares in REITs, which may negatively affect the value of our shares. Future changes to tax laws could potentially adversely affect the taxation of the REIT, its subsidiaries, or its shareholder s, possibly having a negative effect on the value of our shares.

Net interest limitation in the 2017 Act may adversely impact us.

The 2017 Act imposed a limit on net interest expense deductions that exceed 30% of adjusted taxable income, which is generally taxable income excluding net interest expense and for taxable years beginning before January 1, 2022, deductions for depreciation and amortization. If our net interest expense is so limited, as a REIT, we may elect out of the new limitation provided we adopt longer recovery periods for depreciation of our property. If the interest expense limitation applies and we do not elect longer depreciation periods, then the limitation on our interest expense deduction will increase our taxable income and require us to make greater distributions to our shareholder s to avoid our paying federal income tax and to ensure we meet the distribution requirements for qualification as a REIT. Alternatively, if we do elect out of the limitation in a taxable year, the reduced deprecation would likewise increase our taxable income and require us to make greater distributions to our shareholder s to avoid our paying federal income tax and to ensure compliance with the distribution requirements.

Members of the Taubman Family have the power to vote a significant number of the shares of Capital Stock entitled to vote and have contractual rights.

Based on information contained in filings made with the SEC, as of  December 31, 2018 , members of the Taubman Family have the power to vote approximately 30% of the outstanding voting shares of TCO (consisting of our common stock and our Series B Preferred Shares). The Taubman Family members’ ownership of Series B Preferred Shares (representing an approximate 28% voting interest in TCO ) corresponds with the Taubman Family members’ economic ownership in TRG . Our shares of common stock and our Series B Preferred Shares vote together as a single class on all matters submitted to a vote of our shareholders.

Based on their current ownership of the Series B Preferred Shares, the holders of the Series B Preferred Shares (97% of which are held by members of the Taubman Family) have the right to nominate up to four individuals for election to our Board of Directors and certain other class voting rights. Like all director nominees, the Series B nominees are voted on by shareholders at TCO ’s annual meeting. For so long as the holders of our Series B Preferred Shares are entitled to nominate individuals for election to the Board of Directors, the Board of Directors is required to consist of nine directors (other than as a result of any vacancy caused by death, resignation or removal of a director), and a majority of our directors must be independent. Of our current nine directors, only one, Mr. Robert S. Taubman, was initially nominated by the holders of the Series B Preferred Shares. He was subsequently nominated, and recommended for election, by our Board of Directors. None of our eight other directors was nominated by the holders of the Series B Preferred Shares.

As a result of their ownership of our voting stock (common shares and Series B Preferred Shares), members of the Taubman Family may exercise significant influence with respect to the election of our Board of Directors and the outcome of matters submitted to our shareholders for approval. Our governing documents provide that any matter submitted to our shareholders for approval, including any merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets, requires the affirmative vote of holders owning not less than two-thirds of the outstanding shares of Capital Stock (which term refers to the common stock, preferred stock, and Excess Stock, as defined below) entitled to vote on such matter (except the election of directors, which is subject to a plurality vote coupled with a majority vote resignation policy, and the adjournment of meetings).

TRG ’s partnership agreement provides that, for so long as members of the Taubman Family own 5% or more of TRG units, without the prior written consent of a majority-in-interest of the Other Partners (currently held by members of the Taubman Family), TRG may not, among other things, enter into certain business combination transactions, issue additional TRG units (other than to TCO in certain circumstances) to a person or entity that, together with such person’s or entity’s affiliates, would own more than 5% of TRG units, dispose or encumber all or substantially all of TRG's assets, or dispose or encumber specified shopping centers (specifically Beverly Center, Cherry Creek, Twelve Oaks, Short Hills or Stamford Town Center, which were contributed to TRG in 1985). The partnership agreement had specified two additional shopping centers for which the Other Partners’ consent was required for a disposition. TCO elected to sell these two shopping centers in 2014, and the Other Partners provided their consent to such disposition.

The Manager is 99.8% beneficially owned by TRG and 0.2% beneficially owned by Taub-Co, which is 100% owned by members of the Taubman Family. The Manager provides certain administrative, management, accounting, shareholder relations and other services relative to the operations and administration of TCO pursuant to a corporate services agreement between TCO and the Manager (Corporate Services Agreement) and certain management, leasing, development, acquisition and administrative services pursuant to a management services agreement between TRG and the Manager (Master Services Agreement). At the time of TCO's initial public offering in 1992, TCO and TRG entered into the Corporate Services Agreement and the Master Services Agreement, respectively, and an entity controlled by members of the Taubman Family served as sole general partner of the Manager. In 2001, the Manager converted to a Delaware limited liability company and Taub-Co became sole managing member of the Manager, preserving the management rights of the Taubman Family members in the Manager. In 2006, although Taub-Co was sole managing member of the Manager, Taub-Co granted TRG the right to unilaterally act on behalf of Taub-Co as the managing member of the Manager, with Taub-Co having the right to revoke this authority at any time. In 2010, to formalize TRG's management rights in the Manager, TRG became a co-managing member of the Manager with the authority to act unilaterally on behalf of the Manager and was designated as the sole tax matters member, which co-management organizational structure of the Manager remains in place today. Under the Manager’s operating agreement, although TRG has been acting on behalf of the Manager as the managing member and Taub-Co has not exercised its rights as co-managing member, Taub-Co may revoke the authority of TRG to act unilaterally on behalf of the Manager, in which event the Manager’s actions would require approval by both co-managing members.

TCO has the unilateral right to terminate the Corporate Services Agreement and, in addition, TCO , as the sole managing general partner of TRG , has the unilateral right to terminate the Master Services Agreement. If the Master Services Agreement is terminated, TRG may terminate the property service agreements between the Manager and our subsidiaries pursuant to which the Manager provides services to our shopping centers, provided that the termination of certain property service agreements may require the consent of our joint venture partners or other third parties. In addition, if the Management Services Agreement is terminated, Taub-Co has the right to purchase all of the membership interests in the Manager that it does not already own for a purchase price based on the net book value of the Manager. TCO may terminate either the Corporate Services Agreement or the Master Services Agreement without terminating the other.

As a result of these voting and contractual rights, it would be difficult, as a practical matter, for there to be a change in control of TCO without the affirmative vote of members of the Taubman Family.

Partnership tax audit rules could have a material adverse effect on us.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 changed the rules applicable to U.S. federal income tax audits of partnerships. Under the rules, effective for taxable years beginning in 2018, among other changes and subject to certain exceptions, any audit adjustment to items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit of a partnership (and a partner’s allocable share thereof) is determined, and taxes, interest, and penalties attributable thereto are assessed and collected, at the partnership level. Unless the partnership makes an election permitted under the new law or takes certain steps to require the partners to pay their tax on their allocable shares of the adjustment, it is possible that partnerships in which we directly or indirectly invest would be required to pay additional taxes, interest, and penalties as a result of an audit adjustment. We, as a direct or indirect partner of these partnerships, could be required to bear the economic burden of those taxes, interest, and penalties even though TCO , as a REIT, may not otherwise have been required to pay additional corporate‑level taxes had we owned the assets of the partnership directly. The partnership tax audit rules apply to TRG and its subsidiaries that are classified as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The changes created by these rules are significant for collecting tax in partnership audits and, accordingly, there can be no assurance that these rules will not have a material adverse effect on us.

Our Ownership Limit and other provisions of our Articles and Amended and Restated Bylaws generally prohibit the acquisition of more than 8.23% of the value of our Capital Stock and may hinder any attempt to acquire us.

Various provisions of our Articles and Amended and Restated Bylaws could have the effect of discouraging a third party from accumulating a large block of our stock and making offers to acquire us and of inhibiting a change in control, all of which could adversely affect our shareholder s’ ability to receive a premium for their shares in connection with such a transaction. In addition to customary anti-takeover provisions, as detailed below, our Articles contain REIT-specific restrictions on the ownership and transfer of our capital stock, which also serve similar anti-takeover purposes.

Under our Articles, in general, no shareholder may own more than 8.23% (the Ownership Limit) in value of our Capital Stock. Our Board of Directors has the authority to allow a "look through entity" to own up to 9.9% in value of the Capital Stock (Look Through Entity Limit), provided that, after application of certain constructive ownership rules under the Code and rules regarding beneficial ownership under the Michigan Business Corporation Act, no individual would constructively or beneficially own more than the Ownership Limit. A look through entity is any entity other than a qualified trust under Section 401(a) of the Code, certain other tax-exempt entities described in the Articles, or an entity that actually or constructively owns 10% or more of the equity of any tenant from which we or TRG directly or indirectly receives or accrues rent from real property.

The Articles provide that if the transfer of any shares of Capital Stock or a change in our capital structure would cause any person (Purported Transferee) to own Capital Stock in excess of the Ownership Limit or the Look Through Entity Limit, then the transfer is invalid from the outset, and the shares in excess of the applicable ownership limit automatically acquire the status of Excess Stock. A Purported Transferee of Excess Stock acquires no rights to shares of Excess Stock. Rather, all rights associated with the ownership of those shares (with the exception of the right to be reimbursed for the original purchase price of those shares) immediately vest in one or more charitable organizations designated from time to time by our Board of Directors (each, a Designated Charity). An agent designated from time to time by the Board of Directors (each, a Designated Agent) will act as attorney-in-fact for the Designated Charity to vote the shares of Excess Stock. The Designated Agent will sell the Excess Stock, and any increase in value of the Excess Stock between the date it became Excess Stock and the date of sale will inure to the benefit of the Designated Charity.

These ownership limitations will not be automatically removed even if the REIT requirements are changed so as to no longer contain any ownership limitation or if an ownership limitation is increased because, in addition to preserving our status as a REIT, the effect of the ownership limitations is to prevent any person from acquiring control of us. Changes in the ownership limitations cannot be made solely by our Board of Directors and would require an amendment to our Articles. Amendments to our Articles require the approval of our Board of Directors and the affirmative vote of shareholder s owning not less than two-thirds of the outstanding shares of Capital Stock entitled to vote.

Members of the Taubman Family, collectively, own approximately 30% of our Capital Stock as of December 31, 2018 . The combined Taubman Family members' ownership of our Capital Stock includes 24,128,305 shares of the 24,862,994 shares of Series B Preferred Shares outstanding or 97% of the total outstanding and 1,748,477 shares of the 61,069,108 shares of common stock outstanding or 2.86% of the total outstanding as of December 31, 2018 . The Series B Preferred Shares are convertible into shares of common stock at a ratio of 14,000 Series B Preferred Shares to one share of common stock, and therefore one Series B Preferred Share has a value of 1/14,000ths of the value of one share of common stock. Accordingly, the foregoing ownership of Capital Stock by members of the Taubman Family does not violate the Ownership Limit set forth in our Articles.

Our success depends, in part, on our ability to attract and retain talented employees, and the loss of any one of our key personnel could adversely impact our business.

The success of our business depends, in part, on the leadership and performance of our executive management team and key employees, and our ability to attract, retain, and motivate talented employees could significantly impact our future performance. Competition for these individuals is intense, and we cannot assure you that we will retain our executive management team and key employees or that we will be able to attract and retain other highly qualified individuals for these positions in the future. Losing any one or more of these persons could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

Our cost savings and restructuring initiatives may be disruptive to our workforce and operations and adversely affect our financial results.

In response to the completion of another major development cycle and the current near-term challenges facing the U.S. mall industry, we have been undergoing a restructuring to reduce our workforce and reorganize various areas of the organization. To the extent such initiatives involve workforce changes, such changes may temporarily reduce workforce productivity, impact employee morale, and affect our ability to attract and retain talented employees, which could be disruptive to our business and adversely affect our results of operations. In addition, we may not achieve or sustain the expected cost savings or other benefits of our restructuring plans, or do so within the expected time frame.

The market price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly.

The market price of our common stock may fluctuate significantly in response to many factors, including:

Many of the factors listed above are beyond our control. These factors may cause the market price of our common stock to decline, regardless of our financial performance and condition and prospects. It is impossible to provide any assurance that the market price of our common stock will not fall in the future, and it may be difficult for holders to resell shares of our common stock at prices they find attractive, or at all.

Our shareholder s will experience dilution as a result of equity offerings and they may experience further dilution if we issue additional common equity.

We have previously issued common equity, both common shares and TRG Units, which had a dilutive effect on our earnings per diluted share and FFO per diluted share. TRG Units have also been issued from time to time in connection with acquisitions of real estate, which once tendered, have had a similar dilution impact. In addition, we have previously issued additional shares of preferred stock which adversely affected the earnings per share available to our common shareholder s. We are not restricted from issuing additional shares of our common equity or preferred stock, including any securities that are convertible into or exchangeable for, or that represent the right to receive, common stock or preferred stock or any substantially similar securities. Any additional future issuances of common equity will reduce the percentage of our common equity owned by investors who do not participate in future issuances. In most circumstances, shareholder s will not be entitled to vote on whether or not we issue additional common equity. In addition, depending on the terms and pricing of an additional offering of our common equity and the value of our properties, our shareholder s may experience dilution in both the book value and fair value of their interests. The market price of our common stock could decline as a result of sales of a large number of shares of our common stock in the market after an offering or the perception that such sales could occur, and this could materially and adversely affect our ability to raise capital through future offerings of equity or equity-related securities.

Our ability to pay dividends on our stock may be limited.

Because we conduct all of our operations through TRG or its subsidiaries, our ability to pay dividends on our stock will depend almost entirely on payments and distributions received on our interests in TRG . Additionally, the terms of some of the debt to which TRG is a party limits its ability to make some types of payments and other distributions to us. This in turn limits our ability to make some types of payments, including payment of dividends on our stock, unless we meet certain financial tests or such payments or dividends are required to maintain our qualification as a REIT. As a result, if we are unable to meet the applicable financial tests, we may not be able to pay dividends on our stock in one or more periods beyond what is required for REIT purposes.

Our ability to pay dividends is further limited by the requirements of Michigan law.

Our ability to pay dividends on our stock is further limited by the laws of Michigan. Under the Michigan Business Corporation Act, a Michigan corporation may not make a distribution if, after giving effect to the distribution, the corporation would not be able to pay its debts as the debts become due in the usual course of business, or the corporation’s total assets would be less than the sum of its total liabilities plus the amount that would be needed, if the corporation were dissolved at the time of the distribution, to satisfy the preferential rights upon dissolution of shareholder s whose preferential rights are superior to those receiving the distribution. Accordingly, we may not make a distribution on our stock if, after giving effect to the distribution, we would not be able to pay our debts as they become due in the usual course of business or our total assets would be less than the sum of our total liabilities plus the amount that would be needed to satisfy the preferential rights upon dissolution of the holders of any shares of our preferred stock then outstanding.

We may incur additional indebtedness, which may adversely affect our earnings and harm our financial position and cash flow and potentially impact our ability to pay dividends on our stock.

Our governing documents do not limit us from incurring additional indebtedness and other liabilities; however, certain loan covenants include certain restrictions regarding future indebtedness. As of December 31, 2018 , we had $3.8 billion of consolidated indebtedness outstanding, and our beneficial interest in both our consolidated debt and the debt of our unconsolidated joint ventures was $5.0 billion . We may incur additional indebtedness and become more highly leveraged, requiring us to pay increased levels of interest, which could adversely affect our earnings and harm our financial position and potentially limit our cash available to pay dividends.

We may change the distribution policy for our common stock in the future.

The decision to declare and pay dividends on our common stock in the future, as well as the timing, amount, and composition of any such future dividends, will be at the sole discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend on our earnings, FFO, liquidity, financial condition, capital requirements, contractual prohibitions, or other limitations under our indebtedness and preferred shares, the annual dividend requirements under the REIT provisions of the Code, state law and such other factors as our Board of Directors deems relevant. Further, we have regularly issued new shares of common equity as compensation to our employees, and we have periodically issued new shares of capital stock pursuant to public offerings or acquisitions. Any future issuances may substantially increase the cash required to pay dividends at current or higher levels. Our actual dividend payable will be determined by our Board of Directors based upon the circumstances at the time of declaration. Although we have regularly paid dividends on a quarterly basis on our common and preferred stock in the past, and since we went public in 1992 we have never reduced our regular common dividend and have increased it 21 times, we do not guarantee we will continue to do so in the future. Any change in our dividend policy could have a material adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

REIT distribution requirements could adversely affect our liquidity and our ability to execute our business plan.

In order for us to qualify to be taxed as a REIT, and assuming that certain other requirements are also satisfied, we generally must distribute at least 90% of REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding any net capital gains, to our shareholder s each year. To this point, we have historically distributed at least 100% of our taxable income and thereby avoided income tax altogether. To the extent we satisfy this distribution requirement and qualify for taxation as a REIT, but distribute less than 100% of our REIT taxable income, we will be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax on our undistributed net taxable income and could be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax if the actual amount that is distributed to shareholder s in a calendar year is less than “the required minimum distribution amount” specified under U.S. federal income tax laws. We intend to make distributions to our shareholder s to comply with the REIT requirements of the Code.

From time to time, we might generate taxable income greater than our cash flow as a result of differences in timing between the recognition of taxable income and the actual receipt of cash, the effect of nondeductible capital expenditures, the creation of reserves, required debt or amortization payments, or income inclusions of foreign earnings as to which cash has not been repatriated to us by distributions from our foreign entities. If we do not have other funds available in these situations, we could be required to access capital on unfavorable terms (the receipt of which cannot be assured), sell assets at disadvantageous prices, distribute amounts that would otherwise be invested in future acquisitions, capital expenditures or repayment of debt, or make taxable distributions of capital stock or debt securities to make distributions sufficient to pay out enough REIT taxable income to satisfy the REIT distribution requirement and avoid corporate income tax and the 4% excise tax in a particular year. These alternatives could increase costs or reduce our equity. Further, amounts distributed will not be available to fund the growth of our business. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may adversely affect our liquidity and our ability to execute our business plan.