I said it may require more capex that previous journal entrees have noted. I find it strange its capex is regularly above yoy deprecation, yet its accumulated depreciation to gross PPE ratio is getting bigger.
Accumulated deprecation will narrow if you dispose of assets, in which all former entries on the balance sheet are eliminated, or if new PPE is added & thus the accumulated deprecation expense will narrow, as for example, an asset with a 10 year life span that cost $1000 would have 10% accumulated depreciation after 1 year, where as it would be 50% in its 5th year.
The whole point of capitalizing expenditures is to not count them as expenses, but as assets. So why TRS capex not showing itself on the balance sheet?
The below is the last 5 years of book value per share, (left to right = 2012 -2017)
|
Column 1 |
Column 2 |
Column 3 |
Column 4 |
Column 5 |
| 1 |
$ 4.72 |
$ 4.17 |
$ 4.67 |
$ 4.69 |
$ 4.68 |
It hasn't increased its book value despite spending over 120m in net capex. I guess its all maintenance capex - however even that is not enough as its accumulated depreciation ratio getting bigger. It needs to spend more in capex maintain current core assets. TRS operates on a historical average of -1% when adjusting net income by adding back depreciation & subtracting net capex. But that may get worse in the future.
I wouldnt trust the reported net income for TRS. Dont think the market is either, given it currently has a yield of over 8% (too good to be true).
(20min delay)