For the first quarter of 2015:
Revenues were $147.0 million, up 2 percent. Excluding revenues from reimbursed expenses, revenues increased 4 percent. This increase included contributions from four more 767 dry leases with external customers, versus the same quarter a year ago. These leases offset reductions in revenues from certain international operations.
Pre-tax earnings from continuing operations increased 40 percent to $14.5 million as results from ATSG's airline businesses again improved sharply versus the prior-year period.
Net earnings from continuing operations increased 36 percent to $8.9 million, or 14 cents per diluted share. Operating loss carryforwards for U.S. federal income tax purposes offset much of the company’s federal tax liabilities. ATSG does not expect to pay significant federal income taxes until 2017 at the earliest.
Adjusted EBITDA (Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization) increased 20 percent to $46.5 million.
Yea, they kind of did:
"Management's goal with respect to realized capital gains on the distressed loan portfolio has been, and will continue to be, concentrated on executing sell-trades at the most favorable price it believes it can obtain, and this often will not coincide perfectly with quarterly cut-off dates. Consequently, the Company is going to have quarters where net income per share is above or below the Company's current dividend payout rate and this will frequently be driven by the level of dispositions consummated during the quarter. For this reason, management focuses on earnings generation over a twelve month period."
This is what I find particularly disappointing:
" The decrease in book value per common share of $0.07 was due to dividends on common stock paid of $0.16 per share, partially offset by net income allocable to common shares of $0.07, and other net mark to market adjustments of $0.02."
ROC continues. I agree 4.25 is very likely. The only thing I can say in their defense is that the environment was pretty tough on a large chunk of the REITs this Q.
What a total smear of BS. If they don't stop bleeding the book value to pay that dividend what good is it? Share buy back? Where are the funds for that coming from? The current discount to book value is in the same realm as most other reits. How do they buy back shares, pay a minimum .16 dividend, and keep from eroding the current book value even more?
"Boastful talk can turn off our fellow stakeholders who joined the party after the storm clouds passed."
Forget it, he won't listen, his narcissism knows no bounds.
I am all for growth. NO dividends, they would be minuscule in accordance to earnings. NO buyback, buying back stock at this premium over book would hurt more than help. Skewing the balance sheet by paying down some of the debt would be very beneficial. At this point any consideration of investment or expansion should be reviewed VERY carefully. You can see where the current earnings are taking us, there is no sense in stirring up the pot at this point.
It's Peter robbing Paul and you know it. How great is a dividend when a substantial component of it is ROC? They declared .16, but how much of that r e a l l y covered the dividend? 9 cents. They just haven't been able to break this pattern and until they do I just cannot see a sustained upside.
They can try putting lipstick on it and hope the dividend "guarantee" will keep investors interested, but if the book keeps falling the discount will follow it.
You remember nobody like me. If you did you'd know I bought a slew of shares in 2009 and sold about 2 years ago. I did very well here, but knew when the party was over.
I was posting here before you likely knew this stock existed. I was run off this board when I started warning people about the increasing ROC associated with the dividend.
And that trend is still in place. This drop of the dividend to .16 was specifically supposed to provide room to cover the dividend and grow the book. One quarter down, still in the same slide.
To be honest, you remind me of the people who ran me off this board and now some of those same people are pitching a fit about how the company has performed.
O great Karnac, why should they wait after the ex date to start buying back shares? Would they not save having to pay a dividend on any shares they buy prior to ex date? Unless you are presuming that the share price will continue to decline going into ex.
Good luck to you pipster, your last post proved my point. I'm done playing with you now, but I'll be back from time to time just to check on you.
I am not familiar with exactly what investment vehicles are currently in use to help finance the pension fund. However as we all know the pension contributions represent a significantly large expense to the tune of several cents per share per quarter.
My submission for one alternative of expenditure would be to invest in some additional income producing vehicles with the soul purpose of supplementing the pension fund.
I'm relieved someone else has done the math. Thank you Book. Q1 2015 only had 9 cents of the 16 cent dividend covered. I wonder how much of that is already delegated to ROC. People see that hefty yield and assume it's all a solid gain.
The ROC not only sabotages the true yield, it will come back to haunt you if you ever sell your shares. At that point you find the cost basis for your shares has been reduced every quarter by the ROC component. If you sell, your capital gain is boosted by the lowered cost basis and you find you have a higher tax liability. Some will say "I never intend to sell my shares so it makes no difference". Fact of the matter is no matter what, you are not getting a true yield as stated.
IF they turn this around it can all change. I think the true question here is what should the amount of the dividend truly be to be secure that it is completely covered.
What??? I'm not talking about book value. Try reading the post again. You may also want to google Return of Capital (ROC) as it pertains to dividends and cost basis of shares owned.
I'll be, you have no clue as to what I am talking about. I would take the time to lay it all out for you but I am pretty sure all I would get back is how daft I am and some other babble that doesn't relate to my point. If you would like to be civil and less argumentative I'll lay out a shining example of what I am talking about.
And you sir are in the mine field and don't even know it. Best of luck, I hope it ends up working out for you and everyone else here. Like I said, if they reverse the trend that has now been going on for quite a while now things will get better. But until they do all they are doing is playing a shell game and paying a significantly lower yield than what is posted. HINT: The actual dividend yield for shares bought the beginning of last year was 9%, not 14%, and that does not take into account the drop in share price over the course of the year.
Seeds.bill, the only problem you have is you're too nice a guy. ;) You've got nothing to apologize for either. If I had stayed and drank their Kool Aid I would have been calling them far worse by now. I drank the juice too until 2 things happened, (1) ROC started to turn up in the 1099 and (2) they started doing offerings below book. But know none of us were born as experts and everyone picks some "learning experiences" along the way. I'll admit their CC's always offered spins to keep investors expecting more. I've been there, done that. I'm only posting here now because I thought they may have finally stopped the bleeding by reducing the dividend and was considering giving them a new look. Instead it upsets me to see longs have to suffer through the same ___. Best of luck to you, hang in there.
You didn't make that kind of return on RSO in the last year unless you actively traded it.
I know this Pip, if you held shares for the last year and didn't trade them, you didn't yield an 80 cent dividend on each share and you'll notice the cost basis for each share you owned fell.
Ok, bottom. I know you want a number, but to be honest there is no bottom until their earnings fully cover the dividend and the ROC component is finally removed. As long as they have to keep drawing shareholder equity to pay the balance of the dividend the share price will keep slumping. There will likely be some positive movement if they physically start buying back shares, but how much and for how long is going to depend on earnings......REAL earnings. Pip, seriously, haven't you wondered how RSO supposedly "hit" their number right on the dot this quarter, yet posted they could only cover 9 cents of the 16 cent dividend? BTW, I'm a grandad, but I do remember those days.