Charter rate is approx 11% on acquisition price. With debt (even with amortization) should be accretive to Free Cash Flow.
ARCP states dividend will be "in line with net lease peers" Dividend coverage ratios for O 1.13 (on new dividend), NNN 1.35, WPC 1.25, SRC 1.24. My guess 125 on Q4 AFFo Annualized .22 X 4 = .88 / 1.25 = $.70.
Looked through the quarterly announcement and supplemental. Could not find a list of apartment projects owned or total number of units owned. If someone can find it please let me know. Thanks.
Anybody have any detail on this BIG drop in value? There was no detail in the Q4 press realease.
Why such a big drop of $ $.54 per share and $124,000,000 over the year. If they are covering their dividend, which they are reporting, why such a big drop? Thoughts!
Per the 3Q 2014 report Fees to NSAM of $39.4 MM plus internal G&A of $14.4 MM total $53.8 MM. This is 19.8% of the total revenue per quarter of $272.2 MM. This is VERY HIGH. Review of OHI, GOV, CSG, MPW, and FSP - Office and Medical REITS show G&A/Fees of 6.4%, 6.8%, 10.6%, 10.7% and 5.2%. AHT - a Hotel REIT has G&A fees of 7.5% for the quarter. It appears from the base fee and performance fees that NRF is being burdened with just under hedge fund fees rather than REIT management costs. Too bad - they are doing a good job of asset acquisition. Thoughts?
RIG has total cash at 3Q-14 of $2.87 Billion or $7.93 per share. Dividend is $3.00 currently. They could pay that out of cash if they wished with no net income. Probable cut but not elimination. Balance sheet is strong with Interest Coverage of 7.38 and debt to EBITDA a low 2.94. Cash only is 28% of debt outstanding. Any thoughts
EVEP provides hedging contract volumes but does not translate this to percent of production covered. Does anyone have this data or can someone provide a calculation formula? - Thanks
What is that worth?
Its the math. 18% margin on $100 oil is $18.00. 18% margin on $60 oil is $10.80. Base costs remain the same so impact is even greater. This will be partially offset by full production with all equipment working compared to last quarter. Current price treats current refinery economics as forever. With the rapid decline in shale well production that simply will not be the case.
The restated dividend will be based at a minimum on taxable income. The question is what they will use as a comparable measure to establish dividends. If they want to be low they can use the yield rates of O and NNN. If they look at the dividend coverage ratios of O and NNN say 1.05 to 1.10 the dividend could be close to the $1.00. This assumes CASH FLOW as reported Q3 was not misreported.
Q3 NII $.25, Dividend $.25. Coverage 1.0 NAV 12/31/14 $7.51 increased over 9 mos to $7.67. Low leverage Liability to Assets .44, Debt to Equity .78 Interest coverage 3.89 Expenses as percent of income 17.8% versus average of 33% for industry (this is a big plus) NII increasing modestly from beginning of year. Seems reasonably solid to me. Other opinions based on data ro actual news welcome.
BBEP has a decent hedge book at prices significantly above current oil prices. Does anyone have thoughts on hos this might affect dividend and value of the stock?
Several law firms are trying to bring class action lawsuits against ARCP. Any thoughts on how this might go would be appreciated. In addition to ARCP, any form with a big drop in value is being pursued this way, SDRL and Petrobras specifically. My concern is the impact on continuing shareholders like myself. Will the costs mean dividends have to be cut? Would a ruling in favor of exited stockholders mean some assets of ARCP would have to be sold impacting continuing shareholders? Any thoughts are welcome.
This is a really bizarre juxtaposition. SDRL issues are the huge drop in oil prices which make their oil drilling customers less willing to drill. This combines with the large number of rigs under construction that SDRL has to pay for with or without clients to lease them. Fly is leasing to airlines which are financially the healthiest they have been in 20 plus years and actually benefit from the drop in oil prices.. FLY buys only existing planes which it finances and generally leases at time of purchase. Fly has no planes under construction and thus no obligations to make forward payments.
There is a perception that AYR is much larger than Fly. The gap in terms of number of aircraft has narrowed with substantial sales by AYR to lower their average age. Fly now has 121 aircraft with an average age of 8.2 years and lease term of 4.9 years. AYR has 19 more aircraft = 140 with and average age of 8.6 years and lease term of 5.0 years. Size difference is in book value Fly $3.477 billion / 121 = average BV of $28.7 million. AYR $5,233/140 = $37.3 million per aircraft. Must be in size mix. Note - when reading AYR's quarterlys, the 2014 numbers are on the right. If you read the leftmost column you are reading 2013 numbers. An odd convention.
Took a look at AYR and FLY return on capital. Used the measure of Adjusted Earnings before Depreciation (so interest was paid) versus Book Value. AYR quarter annualized 29.6%. AYR 9 Mos annualized 31.1%. FLY quarter annualized 38.1% and 9 Mos annualized 34.7%. FLY better returns on equity. Selling, G&A - AYR for quarter 7.78% of revenue and for 9 mos 7.21%. FLY for quarter 9.40% and for 9 months 10.83%. Fly more expensive by 1.62% for quarter and 3.62% for 9 months. For the quarter the gap narrowed as AYR's percentage went up and FLY's went down. Even with the expense advantage AYR's return on equity was less than FLY. FLY dividend yield on 19-Nov-14 stock price is 7.60% vs AYR 4.32%. Fly better yield by 3.28% or an increase in yield of 76%. When you look at the companies financials and results, they are pretty close with FLY being excessively punished for an Ireland address, external aircraft management, and what is portrayed as annoying self serving management .