"Seems clear that 94% was ANTICIPATED but 91% achieved thus the 300bps difference in what was anticipated. Nothing to do with the 92% previously reported."
I guess it depends on the purpose of the exercise. As investors we do not have the quarterly plans in general. But we do have the prior quarters actual. If one point in occupancy explains the 25% slippage from the prior quarter then that is what should have been said in my opinion.
Obfuscate might be a more accurate word than "liar". In my experience liars tend to obfuscate...and I didn't appreciate it. Let's just say that I didn't find the report explanatory. I have a lot of experience with reading such reports and I have a pretty good idea when the attempt is to not fully disclose the truth. As investors we are entitled to the truth. There is also the frightening possibility that management didn't doesn't fully realize what is going on so that is disturbing also. They really need to pay more attention to how they report results to maintain the confidence of their investors. An announcement earlier in the quarter might have been beneficial in maintaining the confidence not only of investors but also those who issue buy/sell recommendations on this company. I doubt that my reaction was any stronger than that of the analysts.
Looks like we might have bottomed now. I hope so.
Getting back to the 92% versus 91% versus 94%. If 92% was achieved last quarter and the economy has worsened and was predicted to worsen, was 94% a realistic plan for the quarter? If last quarter was 92%, was 94% required to maintain the prior quarter's level of FFO? Anyone can make a plan. Most get paid to make realistic plans.
I can't say that I feel that management is being honest with us. Just my opinion. They need to take a good look in the mirror and decide what path they want to go down.
Remember that TCR bought back a preferred issue and substituted debt some time last year. This will have the accounting effect of adding expense to the income statement, though it will not have as large an effect on the funds available for distribution to common shareholders. But it is my sense that this increase in technical leverage at a time of declining occupancy and operating margin is what is causing the disproportionate profit decline.
There were those at the time who saw the preferred call back as a step toward marketing the company... I never understood that logic since it increased the cost of capital. Perhaps the preferred was a convertible.