 |
|  |
 |
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970 time: 00:18
|
|
Colon,
Thanks for your take.
I work as a ski instructor there. They generaally have a good rep, fininacially. Especially as compared to Intrawest or American Ski corp which are much higher leveraged. Real Estate is small at Vail (6% of revenue). The ski slopes themselves are federal land (leased). They do real estate on associated developments. I don't think they could have a liquidity crunch because they have a large line of credit available.
Regarding outsourcing: usually the revenue remains the same (based on end product sales). COGS remains ABOUT (maybe small incr or decr.) the same...what changes is portion of COGS spent on manuf versus raw materials...but that is usually not broken out anyway...for external eyes.) Also some other effects lower CAPEX, lower PPE, lower working capital, one-time charges/benefits (associated with sale of assets, cleanup of facilities, severances, etc.), lower depreciation.
The one example I'm familar with is drug manufacturing.
Last edited by TCO on 20-04-2002 at 10:22
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sten Sture
|
 |
SF, CA don't call it frisco... Striker!!
Mar 1999 time: 21:18
|
|
MTNs line of credit is lead managed by Bank of America, however as is common with large corporate loans, it is syndicated, which means that the lead bank keeps some of the loan (or commitment) and sells off the balance to other banks/finance companies.
The line matures in '06 and carries a 0.375% commitment fee and a 1.375% + 3mo Libor interest rate if drawn. (revolving lines are like credit cards - they carry a maximum and can be drawn and paid back - used a lot for seasonal businesses)
The loan commitment is 146 pages long, but it does have some language about minimum EBITDA coverage, debt to cap and other stuff like that.
EBITDA to interest coverage has been running about 4x, which is not bad for a B/B2 rated company, but the rating is there because of the highly seasonal nature of the business. I would expect that a decent chunk of the value of their business is the real estate that they own some of their development subsidiaries, so P/E may not be super relevant. Those properties would be carried at book, and if the real estate has appreciated, like all good real estate does in the USofA, then they should have a significant unrealized gain on the books.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970 time: 00:18
|
|
Sten, the company only had 6% of revenue from real estate last year...and typically doesn't have much real estate income. This makes them different from Intrawest which started life as a real estate company and still gets substantial income from real estate.
Colon if EPS is a flawed metric and if analysts rely on it/taut it, how would that affect your evaluation of the company? (Not a rhetorical question...am asking seriously how that would affect your view of the company as an investment or as an operation?)
Last edited by TCO on 25-04-2002 at 02:01
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Colon
|
 |
Antwerp, Colon's Chocolate Canard Country
Jan 1970 time: 06:18
|
|
GP, if EPS is an important measure to analysts I’d believe the stock price would fall in the future because P/E is quite high, but it wouldn’t affect my judgement on the fundamental value of the corp.
Faded, this was to be expected, after the acquisition of TW they had over $120bn of goodwill (the sums AOL paid in excess of the value of TW’s assets) sitting on their books. The economic hardships provides a good excuse for many corps (who similarly overpaid for their acquisitions) to write it off in one go, since losses were expected by the markets anyway. (in the case of AOLTW there'll still be a massive $80bn of goodwill left)
UR, you can’t say either is better than the other, it just depends on what you want to measure. If you’re interested in the economic power of your residents GNP would be more accurate, if instead, you’re interested in how much is produced within the boundaries of a country GDP would be more accurate.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Colon
|
 |
Antwerp, Colon's Chocolate Canard Country
Jan 1970 time: 06:18
|
|
Dan, well it’s just a guess, but since few USSR residents owned assets outside of Russia, while the US had plenty, using GNP showed the US in a favourable light. Similarly, as US net assets turned negative since the early 90’s (I assume GDP became larger than GNP at that point as well), using GDP would present the US favourably. Maybe it’s not a technical issue, just one of winning the pissing contest. 
You may have the wrong idea of goodwill. For instance, firm A buys firm B for $10 million and firm B has assets worth of $8mn, to be transferred to firm A’s books when the acquisition is completed. There’s an excess of $2mn that has to show up somewhere in firm A’s books, so it’s filed as goodwill, to be written off over time.
That library you mentioned is accounted somewhere else.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18. Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|