InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 0
Posts 984
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 02/26/2009

Re: None

Wednesday, 02/17/2010 12:21:58 AM

Wednesday, February 17, 2010 12:21:58 AM

Post# of 67237
If DEC 2009 EBITDA ($54 million) was the best and Jan 2010 EBITDA ($2 million) was the worst then the average would be about $28 million per month. $28 million per month on an annual basis is $336 million EBITDA. It only takes $33.33 per month average to get to the $400 million annualized EBITDA target that I would like to see and we are already on the doorstep of the $350 million target. Neither the January nor the December numbers should be indicative of what is to come, too extreme. The truth lies somewhere in between but not directly in between. My contention is that the average will be slanted towards the December numbers so I still hold firm to my $350 to $400 million targets

You have to consider that there were probably some orders coming in during December 2009 in advance of the price increases going into effect soon or it could just be a matter of inventory rebuilds or it could have been some combination of the two that cannibalized January orders. The 10-k may give some insight there. You also have to remember that the company agreed to that $240 million EBITDA number (as of the 12 months ended Dec. 2010) being the number at which they would be in breach of their DIP terms. They would have already known the January numbers when making that deal. If they thought the January 2010 performance was going to continue into the future they would not have set the DIP loan breach of covenant level at $240 million.

Sometimes you have to look at several court documents together to get the full picture. That's why it pays to read any and all of them you can find time for.

Best wishes.


Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.