|
Quotes & Info
|
| WSII > SEC Filings for WSII > Form 10-Q on 23-Jul-2009 | All Recent SEC Filings |
23-Jul-2009
Quarterly Report
Expense Structure
Our cost of operations primarily includes tipping fees and related disposal
costs, labor and related benefit costs, equipment maintenance, fuel, vehicle,
liability and workers' compensation insurance and landfill capping, closure and
post-closure costs. Our strategy is to create vertically integrated operations
where possible, using transfer stations to link collection operations with our
landfills to increase internalization of our waste volume. Internalization
lowers our disposal costs by allowing us to eliminate tipping fees otherwise
paid to third party landfill or transfer station operators. We believe that
internalization provides us with a competitive advantage by allowing us to be a
low cost provider in our markets. We expect that our internalization will
gradually increase over time as we develop our network of transfer stations and
maximize delivery of collection volumes to our landfill sites.
In markets where we do not have our own landfills, we seek to secure disposal
arrangements with municipalities or private owners of landfills or transfer
stations. In these markets, our ability to maintain competitive prices for our
collection services is generally dependent upon our ability to secure
competitive disposal pricing. If owners of third party disposal sites
discontinue our arrangements, we would have to seek alternative disposal sites
which could impact our profitability and cash flow. In addition, if third party
disposal sites increase their tipping fees and we are unable to pass these
increases on to our collection customers, our profitability and cash flow would
be negatively impacted.
We believe that the age and condition of our vehicle fleet has a significant
impact on operating costs, including, but not limited to, repairs and
maintenance, insurance and driver training and retention costs. Through capital
investment, we seek to maintain an average fleet age of approximately six to
seven years. We believe that this enables us to best control our repair and
maintenance costs, safety and insurance costs and employee turnover related
costs.
Selling, general and administrative expenses include managerial costs,
information systems, sales force, administrative expenses and professional fees.
Depreciation, depletion and amortization includes depreciation of fixed
assets over their estimated useful lives using the straight-line method,
depletion of landfill costs, including capping, closure and post-closure
obligations using the units-of-consumption method, and amortization of
intangible assets including customer relationships and contracts and covenants
not-to-compete, which are amortized over the expected life of the benefit to be
received from such intangibles.
Costs associated with acquisitions are expensed as they are incurred. These
costs may include transaction related costs and internal costs, including
executive salaries, overhead and travel costs. Prior to our adoption of
Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 141 (revised 2007),
"Business Combinations" ("SFAS 141(R)") on January 1, 2009, we capitalized
certain third-party costs related to pending acquisitions that are no longer
capitalizable following our adoption of this standard. There were no transition
adjustments relative to our adoption of SFAS 141(R).
Recent Developments
Acquisitions and Dispositions
During July 2009, we entered into an agreement to acquire 875 acres of
agricultural land in Hardee County, Florida, subject to the land being permitted
for the operation of a Class I landfill. The purchase price, at the seller's
option, will be either (i) a lump sum payment of $10.0 million to $11.6 million
depending on the timing of the closing of the transaction and payable on closing
or (ii) a portion of the lump sum payment at closing, ranging from $1.0 million
to $7.0 million, plus a future stream of annual payments calculated as the
greater of a specified annual minimum, ranging from $0.2 million to
$0.5 million, or a percentage of revenues from the operation of the landfill,
until the property ceases to be used for landfill related operations, but not
less than twenty years.
During the first six months of 2009, we acquired three separate "tuck-in"
hauling operations in southwest Florida for an aggregate purchase price of
$1.9 million. We are internalizing construction and demolition waste volumes
associated with these acquisitions to certain of our existing landfills in
Florida.
In December 2008, we acquired RIP, Inc., the owner of a construction and
demolition waste landfill in Citrus Country, Florida (the "RIP Landfill"), for
an aggregate purchase price of $7.7 million. Should the site be permitted as a
Class I landfill, Class III landfill, transfer station or a construction and
demolition operation, the sellers are entitled to future royalties at varied
rates per ton based on the volume and type of waste deposited at the site.
In December 2008, we acquired the assets of Commercial Clean-up Enterprises,
Inc. and We Haul of South Florida, Inc. (collectively, "Commercial Clean-up"), a
construction and demolition hauling operation in Fort Myers and Naples, Florida,
for a total purchase price of $6.1 million, of which $1.6 million is deferred
and payable as we collect waste volumes from within the counties of Charlotte,
Lee and Collier, Florida. We are internalizing the waste volumes associated with
this acquisition to our SLD Landfill in southwest Florida.
In March 2008, we sold our hauling and material recovery operations and a
construction and demolition landfill site in the Jacksonville, Florida market to
an independent third party. The proceeds from this sale approximated
$56.7 million of cash, including working capital. At the time of close, we were
actively pursuing an expansion at the landfill. If the construction and
demolition landfill site did not obtain certain permits relating to an
expansion, we would have been required to refund $10.0 million of the purchase
price and receive title to the expansion property. Accordingly, at the time of
closing we deferred this portion of the proceeds, net of our $3.0 million cost
basis. During December 2008, the permits relating to the expansion were secured
and the deferred gain was recognized. Simultaneously with the closing of the
sale transaction we entered into an operating lease with the buyer for certain
land and buildings used in the Jacksonville, Florida operations, for a term of
five years at $0.5 million per year. The lessee had the option to purchase the
leased assets for a purchase price of $6.0 million, which it exercised in
March 2009 resulting in a gain on sale of $3.3 million in the quarter. The
proceeds from the sale of the leased assets were utilized to repay amounts under
the revolver portion of our Credit Facilities. At the time of close in
March 2008, we utilized $42.5 million of the proceeds to make a prepayment of
the term loan under our Senior Secured Credit Facilities. Accordingly, we
expensed approximately $0.5 million of unamortized debt issue costs relating to
this retirement. For the year ended 2008, we recognized a pre-tax gain on
disposal of $18.4 million ($11.1 million net of tax) relative to the sale of the
Jacksonville, Florida operations, of which $11.4 million ($6.9 million net of
tax) was realized during the first six months of 2008. Included in the
calculation of the gain on disposal for the Jacksonville, Florida operations was
approximately $23.6 million of goodwill. Subsequent to the disposal of the
Jacksonville, Florida operations, we adjusted the pre-tax gain on disposal for
the settlement of working capital of approximately $0.2 million.
We have presented the net assets and operations of our Jacksonville, Florida
operations, as discontinued operations for all periods presented. Revenue from
discontinued operations was nil and $4.7 million for the three and six months
ended June 30, 2008, respectively, and pre-tax income from discontinued
operations was nil and $0.7 million for the three and six months ended June 30,
2008, respectively. The transaction to dispose of the Jacksonville, Florida
operations was completed in 2008 and accordingly, these operations had no impact
on our 2009 results.
Goodwill
We account for goodwill in accordance with SFAS No. 142, "Goodwill and Other
Intangible Assets" ("SFAS 142"). We test for impairment of goodwill annually on
December 31 and whenever events or circumstances change between annual tests
that would indicate a possible impairment. Examples of such events may include:
(i) a significant adverse change in legal factors or in the business climate;
(ii) an adverse action or assessment by a regulator; (iii) a more likely than
not expectation that a reporting unit or a significant portion thereof will be
sold; (iv) continued or sustained losses at a reporting unit; (v) a significant
decline in our market capitalization as compared to our book value or (vi) the
testing for recoverability of a significant asset group within the reporting
unit. We test for impairment using the two-step process prescribed by SFAS 142.
The first step is a screen for potential impairment, while the second step
measures the amount of the impairment, if any. The first step of the goodwill
impairment test compares the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying
amount, including goodwill.
During the first and second quarters of 2009, our market capitalization
declined from that of the fourth quarter of 2008. We considered this decline to
be an indicator of possible impairment of goodwill. As of both March 31, 2009
and June 30, 2009, we performed an interim step one screen for impairment, which
we passed and accordingly, we did not proceed to the second step, and we
concluded that our goodwill was not impaired. Consistent with our annual
goodwill tests performed in prior years, for these interim impairment tests we
defined our reporting units to be consistent with our operating segments:
Eastern Canada, Western Canada and Florida. In determining fair value, we
primarily utilize discounted future cash flows. However, we may compare the
results of fair value calculated using discounted cash flows to other fair value
techniques including: (i) operating results based on a comparative multiple of
earnings or revenues; (ii) offers from interested investors, if any; or
(iii) appraisals. There may be instances where these alternative methods provide
a more accurate measure or indication of fair value. Significant estimates used
in the fair value calculation utilizing discounted future cash flows include,
but are not limited to: (i) estimates of future revenue and expense growth by
reporting unit; (ii) future estimated effective tax rates, which we estimate to
range between 32% and 40%; (iii) future estimated capital expenditures as well
as future required investments in working capital; (iv) estimated discount rate,
which we estimate to range between 11% and 12%; (v) the ability to utilize
certain domestic tax attributes and (vi) the future terminal value of the
reporting unit, which is based on its ability to exist into perpetuity.
Significant estimates used in the fair value calculation utilizing market value
multiples include but are not limited to: (i) estimated future growth potential
of the reporting unit; (ii) estimated multiples of revenue or earnings a willing
buyer is likely to pay; and (iii) estimated control premium a willing buyer is
likely to pay. There were no substantial changes in the methodologies employed,
significant assumptions used, or calculations applied in the first step of these
interim SFAS 142 impairment tests compared to our annual test for 2008.
In preparing our interim test for impairment, we determined that the sum of
our reporting unit fair values exceeded our market capitalization. We determined
market capitalization as the fair value of our common shares outstanding using
the twenty-day weighted average to the end of the interim period. We believe one
of the primary reconciling differences between fair value and our market
capitalization relates to control premium. Control premium is the savings and /
or synergies a market participant could realize by obtaining control and
eliminating duplicative overhead costs and realizing operating efficiencies from
the consolidation of routes and internalization of waste streams. Additionally,
we believe there are qualitative factors that externally influence our market
capitalization including, but not limited to:
• The fact that, to a significant extent, our shares are held by insiders and
affiliates, reducing market liquidity.
• One of our larger shareholders, due to circumstances unrelated to us, is liquidating their position putting pressure on the market price of our shares.
• We believe that in general, the market continues to discount the value of common equity, believing that current leverage ratios are not sustainable and companies will be required to refinance debt at higher rates and / or issue additional equity thereby diluting current shareholders. However, as a result of the October 2008 refinancing of our Senior Secured Credit Facilities, we believe our capital structure to be stable, but such stability is not reflected in our share price.
We will continue to monitor market trends in our business, the related
expected cash flows and our calculation of market capitalization for purposes of
identifying possible indicators of impairment. Should our book value per share
continue to exceed our market price per share, or we have other indicators of
impairment, as previously discussed, we will be required to perform additional
interim goodwill impairment analyses, which may lead to the recognition of a
goodwill impairment. Additionally, we would then be required to review our
remaining long-lived assets for potential impairment.
Future events, including but not limited to continued declines in economic
activity, loss of contracts or a significant number of customers and / or a
rapid increase in costs or capital expenditures, could cause us to conclude that
impairment indicators exist and that goodwill associated with the reporting
units is impaired. Any resulting impairment loss could have a material adverse
impact on our financial condition and results of operations.
Results of Operations for the Three and Six Months Ended June 30, 2009 and 2008
A portion of our operations is domiciled in Canada. For each reporting period
we translate the results of operations and financial condition of our Canadian
operations into U.S. dollars, in accordance with SFAS No. 52, "Foreign Currency
Translation", ("SFAS 52"). Therefore, the reported results of our operations and
financial condition are subject to changes in the exchange relationship between
the two currencies. For example, as the relationship of the Canadian dollar
strengthens against the U.S. dollar, revenue is favorably affected and
conversely expenses are unfavorably affected. Assets and liabilities of our
Canadian operations are translated from Canadian dollars into U.S. dollars at
the exchange rates in effect at the relevant balance sheet dates, and revenue
and expenses of our Canadian operations are translated from Canadian dollars
into U.S. dollars at the average exchange rates prevailing during the period.
Unrealized gains and losses on translation of our Canadian operations into U.S.
dollars are reported as a separate component of shareholders' equity and are
included in comprehensive income or loss. Monetary assets and liabilities, as
well as intercompany balances denominated in U.S. dollars held by our Canadian
operations are re-measured from U.S. dollars into Canadian dollars and then
translated into U.S. dollars. The effects of re-measurement are reported
currently as a component of net income (loss). Currently, we do not hedge our
exposure to changes in foreign exchange rates.
Exchange rates for the Canadian dollar to U.S. dollar that are applicable for
the periods covered by the accompanying Unaudited Condensed Consolidated
Financial Statements are summarized as follows:
As of:
June 30, 2009 $ 0.8598
December 31, 2008 0.8210
For the three months ended:
June 30, 2009 $ 0.8570
June 30, 2008 0.9900
For the six months ended:
June 30, 2009 $ 0.8294
June 30, 2008 0.9927
|
Our consolidated results of operations for the three and six months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008 are as follows (in thousands):
Three Months Ended June 30, 2009
Florida Canada Total
Revenue $ 50,737 100.0 % $ 56,748 100.0 % $ 107,485 100.0 %
Operating expenses:
Cost of operations 31,540 62.2 % 37,944 66.9 % 69,484 64.6 %
Selling, general and administrative expense 6,321 12.5 % 6,419 11.3 % 12,740 11.9 %
Depreciation, depletion and amortization 6,358 12.5 % 4,358 7.7 % 10,716 10.0 %
Loss (gain) on sale of property and equipment,
foreign exchange and other 1,277 2.5 % (493 ) -0.9 % 784 0.7 %
Income from operations $ 5,241 10.3 % $ 8,520 15.0 % $ 13,761 12.8 %
Three Months Ended June 30, 2008
Florida Canada Total
Revenue $ 60,774 100.0 % $ 67,508 100.0 % $ 128,282 100.0 %
Operating expenses:
Cost of operations 39,468 64.9 % 44,137 65.4 % 83,605 65.2 %
Selling, general and administrative expense 8,309 13.7 % 8,196 12.1 % 16,505 12.9 %
Depreciation, depletion and amortization 6,635 10.9 % 4,985 7.4 % 11,620 9.1 %
Gain on sale of property and equipment,
foreign exchange and other (282 ) -0.4 % (1 ) 0.0 % (283 ) -0.3 %
Income from operations $ 6,644 10.9 % $ 10,191 15.1 % $ 16,835 13.1 %
|
Six Months Ended June 30, 2009
Florida Canada Total
Revenue $ 100,980 100.0 % $ 102,297 100.0 % $ 203,277 100.0 %
Operating expenses:
Cost of operations 63,515 62.9 % 69,177 67.6 % 132,692 65.3 %
Selling, general and administrative expense 12,767 12.6 % 13,182 12.9 % 25,949 12.8 %
Depreciation, depletion and amortization 12,722 12.6 % 8,354 8.2 % 21,076 10.4 %
Gain on sale of property and equipment,
foreign exchange and other (2,197 ) -2.1 % (329 ) -0.3 % (2,526 ) -1.3 %
Income from operations $ 14,173 14.0 % $ 11,913 11.6 % $ 26,086 12.8 %
Six Months Ended June 30, 2008
Florida Canada Total
Revenue $ 120,862 100.0 % $ 124,028 100.0 % $ 244,890 100.0 %
Operating expenses:
Cost of operations 78,384 64.9 % 81,765 65.9 % 160,149 65.4 %
Selling, general and administrative expense 16,408 13.6 % 16,461 13.3 % 32,869 13.4 %
Depreciation, depletion and amortization 13,394 11.1 % 9,928 8.0 % 23,322 9.6 %
Loss (gain) on sale of property and equipment,
foreign exchange and other (482 ) -0.5 % 25 0.0 % (457 ) -0.2 %
Income from operations $ 13,158 10.9 % $ 15,849 12.8 % $ 29,007 11.8 %
|
Revenue
A summary of our revenue is as follows (in thousands):
Three Months Ended June 30, Six Months Ended June 30,
2009 2008 2009 2008
Collection $ 90,470 75.7 % $ 104,865 74.0 % $ 172,731 76.4 % $ 201,370 74.4 %
Landfill
disposal 10,912 9.1 % 12,757 9.0 % 20,486 9.1 % 24,586 9.1 %
Transfer station 15,804 13.2 % 17,896 12.6 % 28,778 12.7 % 32,567 12.0 %
Material
recovery
facilities 2,070 1.7 % 5,607 4.0 % 3,642 1.6 % 11,393 4.2 %
Other
specialized
services 245 0.3 % 633 0.4 % 446 0.2 % 824 0.3 %
119,501 100.0 % 141,758 100.0 % 226,083 100.0 % 270,740 100.0 %
Intercompany
elimination (12,016 ) (13,476 ) (22,806 ) (25,850 )
$ 107,485 $ 128,282 $ 203,277 $ 244,890
|
Revenue was $107.5 million and $128.3 million for the three months ended June 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively, a decrease of $20.8 million or 16.2%. The decrease in revenue from our Florida operations for the three months ended June 30, 2009 of $10.0 million or 16.5% was driven by decreased collection volumes, primarily in our industrial and commercial lines of business of $2.8 million, coupled with lower third-party transfer station, recycling and landfill . . .
|
|