The previous covenants tripped at LTV = 75%. They are paying extra interest for the breating room of raising the covenant to 90%.
Why do this and pay extra if they were going to cut the dividend anyway? Was there other covenant issues in that range between 75% and 90% that they feared? For example like the way OCNF is being forced to dump stock to raise money to bring them out of covenant breach?
If they were going to eliminate the dividend anyway, why not just leave the covenants be and save on the interest?
Here is another place to look up dwt, but only for ships in range of the AIS system:
You can also see Thalassa's position in the suez canal (but I think it hasn't been updated). I was surprised to see how many of GSL's ships are in pirate territory.
Not GSL's website..each ship is on CMA CGM's website. For instance, Ville d'Aquarius: http://www.cma-cgm.com/en/ProductsServices/ContainerShipping/VesselFleet/Vessel.aspx?VesselID=9125607
Scroll down and you'd find S.DWT, which I took to = DWT.
Since so many of the ships are basically the same TEU I didn't bother going through each one, I just assumed that a similar TEU would lead to a similar DWT...which is why I used the word estimated.
That's where I got my data.
Ah, Michael, don't get so edge-y on me.
No, DWT is not on GSL's site. That's the first place I went after looking at the Allied data. First, I looked at the 6-F. Nada there. Then I went to the original Registration Statement. Nothing there, either. So I did not state anything along that line.
Next, good ol' Google.
I queried: "DWT versus TEU in container ships." Got some answers, which varied from 11.8 to 15.3 as good answers. It appeared that a conservative estimate was 13X based on the data.
So, I suggested we were OK on a "rough back-of-the-envelope" basis. You can look it up.
I'm basing this on the 56,370 TEU's (that from memory, think it's right)...........Dave