AMFAMAN said:
FM,
Do you know why the big differences between the form 41 numbers and say the 10k. We are talking several billions in debt and 40 billion in assets?
[post="261575"][/post]
The Form 41 numbers are quarterly, and so the 2003 numbers provide the sum of the four quarters numbers, effectively overstating the LT debt by a factor of four. The 2004 numbers only include the first three quarters, and thus present roughly 75% of the number shown for 2003.
While the Form 41 numbers include some details not shown on the 10-K, the numbers can be confusing as well. For instance, on pension liabilities, AA is shown as having a deficit of only $65 million, compared to the multiple billions at DL, UA and several others. And we all know that AA's pension deficit is larger than $65 million. B)
By changing the filter from "sum" to "average" the Form 41 numbers get back to reality. The LT debt shown on the Form 41 chart of about $9 billion or so is correct; but to get AA's total debt, you have to add several entries together.
About Eagle's $10 billion of debt - for the same reasons as mentioned above, the true number is only one fourth of that number, or about $2.5 billion. Which makes sense, since Eagle has less only 211 RJs, most of which (other than the CRJ700s) cost quite a bit less than $20 million per copy. The SAABs and ATRs have minimal value, and thus represent minimal debt.
Eagle's debt is included in AMR's total debt of about $29.354 billion as shown on the 10-K.
Former ModerAAtor: Yes, the refinancings helped some, but AA's long term debt (not AMR's LT debt) shown on AA's 10-K declined from $9.073 billion at 12/31/03 to $8.787 billion at 12/31/04. Like I said, it did not decline by any SUBSTANTIAL amount. B)
On top of that, AMR's total debt was slightly larger at 2004 year end from 2003 year end, since AA was successful at borrowing more money in 2004.
