Categories

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Fitch Rates Dryden 37 Senior Loan Fund/LLC

CHICAGO–(BUSINESS WIRE)–

Fitch Ratings assigns the following rating and Rating Outlook to Dryden 37 Senior Loan Fund/LLC:

–$320,000,000 class A notes ‘AAAsf’; Outlook Stable.

Fitch does not rate the class B, C, D, E, F or subordinated notes.

TRANSACTION SUMMARY

Dryden 37 Senior Loan Fund (the issuer) and Dryden 37 Senior Loan Fund LLC (the co-issuer) represent an arbitrage cash flow collateralized loan obligation (CLO) that will be managed by Prudential Investment Management, Inc. (Prudential). Net proceeds from the issuance of notes will be used to purchase a portfolio of approximately $500 million of leveraged loans. The CLO will have a four-year reinvestment period.

KEY RATING DRIVERS

Sufficient Credit Enhancement: Credit enhancement (CE) of 36% for class A, in addition to excess spread, is sufficient to protect against portfolio default and recovery rate projections in the ‘AAAsf’ stress scenario. The level of CE for the class A notes is below the average for recent CLO issuances; however, cash flow modeling indicates performance in line with other ‘AAAsf’ rated CLO notes.

‘B+/B’ Asset Quality: The average credit quality of the indicative portfolio is ‘B+/B’, which is slightly better than that of recent CLOs. Issuers rated in the ‘B’ rating category denote relatively weak credit quality; however, in Fitch’s opinion, the class A notes are unlikely to be affected by the foreseeable level of defaults. The class A notes are robust against default rates of up to 57.4%.

Strong Recovery Expectations: The indicative portfolio consists of 96.4% first-lien senior-secured loans. Approximately 89.5% of the indicative portfolio has either strong recovery prospects or a Fitch-assigned Recovery Rating of ‘RR2’ or higher, resulting in a base case recovery assumption of 76.1%. In determination of the class A note rating, Fitch stressed the indicative portfolio by assuming a higher portfolio concentration of assets with lower recovery prospects and further reduced recovery assumptions for higher rating stress assumptions. The analysis of Dryden 37 class A notes assumed a 34.7% recovery rate in Fitch’s ‘AAAsf’ scenario.

RATING SENSITIVITIES

Fitch evaluated the structure’s sensitivity to the potential variability of key model assumptions including decreases in weighted average spread or recovery rates and increases in default rates or correlation. Fitch expects the class A notes to remain investment grade even under the most extreme sensitivity scenarios. Results under these sensitivity scenarios ranged between ‘A-sf’ and ‘AAAsf’ for the class A notes.

Sources of information used to assess these ratings were provided by the arranger, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and the public domain.

Key Rating Drivers and Rating Sensitivities are further described in the accompanying new issue report, which will be available shortly to investors on Fitch’s website at ‘www.fitchratings.com‘.

For more information about Fitch’s comprehensive subscription service FitchResearch, which includes all presale reports, surveillance and credit reports on more than 20 asset classes, contact product sales at +1-212-908-0800 or at ‘webmaster@fitchratings.com‘.

Additional information is available at ‘www.fitchratings.com‘.

Applicable Criteria & Related Research:

–‘Global Structured Finance Rating Criteria’ (Aug. 4, 2014);

–‘Global Rating Criteria for Corporate CDOs’ (July 25, 2014);

–‘Criteria for Interest Rate Stresses in Structured Finance Transactions and Covered Bonds’ (Dec. 19, 2014);

–‘Counterparty Criteria for Structured Finance and Covered Bonds’ (May 14, 2014).

Applicable Criteria and Related Research:

Global Structured Finance Rating Criteria

http://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=754389

Global Rating Criteria for Corporate CDOs

http://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=753057

Criteria for Interest Rate Stresses in Structured Finance Transactions and Covered Bonds

http://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=838868

Counterparty Criteria for Structured Finance and Covered Bonds

http://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=744158

Additional Disclosure

Solicitation Status

http://www.fitchratings.com/gws/en/disclosure/solicitation?pr_id=981238

ALL FITCH CREDIT RATINGS ARE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS. PLEASE READ THESE LIMITATIONS AND DISCLAIMERS BY FOLLOWING THIS LINK: HTTP://FITCHRATINGS.COM/UNDERSTANDINGCREDITRATINGS. IN ADDITION, RATING DEFINITIONS AND THE TERMS OF USE OF SUCH RATINGS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE AGENCY’S PUBLIC WEBSITE ‘WWW.FITCHRATINGS.COM‘. PUBLISHED RATINGS, CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGIES ARE AVAILABLE FROM THIS SITE AT ALL TIMES. FITCH’S CODE OF CONDUCT, CONFIDENTIALITY, CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, AFFILIATE FIREWALL, COMPLIANCE AND OTHER RELEVANT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FROM THE ‘CODE OF CONDUCT’ SECTION OF THIS SITE. FITCH MAY HAVE PROVIDED ANOTHER PERMISSIBLE SERVICE TO THE RATED ENTITY OR ITS RELATED THIRD PARTIES. DETAILS OF THIS SERVICE FOR RATINGS FOR WHICH THE LEAD ANALYST IS BASED IN AN EU-REGISTERED ENTITY CAN BE FOUND ON THE ENTITY SUMMARY PAGE FOR THIS ISSUER ON THE FITCH WEBSITE.

Investment & Company InformationFinanceFitch Ratings Contact:

Fitch Ratings

Primary Analyst

Aaron Hughes

Director

+1-312-368-2074

Fitch Ratings, Inc.

70 West Madison Street

Chicago, IL 60602

or

Secondary Analyst

Cristina Feracota

Associate Director

+1-312-606-2300

or

Committee Chairperson

Derek Miller

Senior Director

+1-312-368-2076

or

Media Relations:

Sandro Scenga, +1-212-908-0278

sandro.scenga@fitchratings.com […]

Lenders play it safe amid China property woes

Thumbnail

Lenders are expected to stay cautious towards China’s cash-strapped property sector as Shenzhen-based developer Kaisa’s debt woes continue to rattle the market. But they will continue to lend to larger mainland companies.

“Companies from China will remain a major source of business for loan markets this year,” said Sonia Li, head of syndicated loans for Asia at JP Morgan. “But you will see a flight to quality for Chinese borrowers, particularly in light of what is happening in the real estate sector. Lenders will be very cautious to the real estate sector,” she added.

China has become a bigger part of Asia’s loan markets. According to Thomson Reuters data, China was the largest driver for loan growth in the Asia-Pacific region last year, accounting for $141.3 billion in loan volume or about 27% of the total in the region. Infrastructure, project and real estate deals accounted for slightly more than two-thirds of that volume.

Given the increasing exposure banks have to Chinese property, a protracted downturn could have a knock-on effect on the banks. “A lot of mid-sized and big Chinese banks as well as foreign banks have exposure to the China property sector. A big downturn in China real estate market would affect everyone but the mainland banks have the most exposure to the property market,” said Christine Kuo, senior credit officer at Moody’s.

For now, however, the rating agency views Kaisa’s problems as being unique to the company and, at a briefing in Hong Kong on Tuesday, Simon Wong, Moody’s senior credit officer, told reporters that he didn’t think the Shenzhen’s developer’s problems would pose a systemic risk to the sector.

“If the Kaisa case is resolved satisfactorily, such as another developer coming in and potentially buying Kaisa’s assets at fair market value, I think that would also help to ease investors’ concerns,” Wong told reporters.

related

Kaisa given respite but is still in the doghouse Kaisa default triggers broader loan worries Agile woe compounds China’s property problems Cofco Land plans up to $500m placement Loan Week, February 13-18

For now though, investors and lenders are giving the sector a wide berth.

Kaisa had been subject to unexplained bans imposed by the Shenzhen government on the sale of its property projects in Shenzhen. Reports had been circulating that other developers including Fantasia and China Overseas Land & Investment have faced similar bans but the companies have since clarified that the blocked sales are due to administrative procedures by the authorities, and not violations by the companies.

Lenders could also turn wary towards small-cap companies. “China is an important market but we expect more large-cap and higher grade companies this year compared to last year given the concerns over the mid-cap sector,” said Amit Khattar, head of syndicated loans for Asia at Deutsche Bank.

Subordination risk

Kaisa’s problems expose the risks that offshore lenders face. It had initially defaulted on a $51 million loan with HSBC. While it subsequently got a waiver from the British lender, other creditors have frozen some of its onshore bank accounts, and if it came down to a default, onshore lenders would get first dibs on the assets.

Offshore lenders are often subordinated to mainland lenders as the loans are typically issued through offshore holding companies, using the so-called red chip structure.

China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange (Safe) has made moves to take away some of that subordination risk and, in July last year, relaxed the rules to allow mainland companies to use onshore assets as collateral when raising funds offshore. However, there are restrictions, and Safe has made it clear that the proceeds have to be kept offshore.

“The change in Safe rules means that offshore lenders can get senior secured access to Chinese companies rather than just a red chip structure,” said Khattar. “It is a meaningful development but the number of companies using this has been limited by restrictions over the use of proceeds,” he added.

Lenders have been comfortable lending to offshore holding companies, provided they are perceived to be a strong credit. For example, smartphone company Xiaomi last year tested the market with a debut $1 billion loan, which attracted 29 lenders. Xiaomi is cash rich, with no onshore borrowings.

However, weaker companies are expected to come under more scrutiny now. “Lenders have become more comfortable with loans using offshore holding company structures,” said Deutsche Bank’s Khattar. “But they will be more wary about certain credits,” he added.

This year could be a more challenging one for mainland companies as Taiwanese lenders are keen to keep their exposure to mainland companies down, and could look to diversify to Indian or Southeast Asian companies. “Taiwanese banks were big investors for China loans in the past but they have pretty tight China limits at the moment,” said JP Morgan’s Li.

But amid ongoing market volatility, more companies could start tapping the loan markets as bond yields have risen. “Bond market volatility specially in the high yield market could see more high yield issuers trying to access the loan markets in 2015,” said Khattar.

¬ Haymarket Media Limited. All rights reserved.

Email this Print this Tweet this Send us your tips […]

Flight to safety for lenders amid China property woes

Thumbnail

Lenders are expected to stay cautious towards China’s cash-strapped property sector as Shenzhen-based developer Kaisa’s debt woes continue to rattle the market. But they will continue to lend to larger mainland companies.

“Companies from China will remain a major source of business for loan markets this year,” said Sonia Li, head of syndicated loans for Asia at JP Morgan. “But you will see a flight to quality for Chinese borrowers, particularly in light of what is happening in the real estate sector. Lenders will be very cautious to the real estate sector,” she added.

China has become a bigger part of Asia’s loan markets. According to Thomson Reuters data, China was the largest driver for loan growth in the Asia-Pacific region last year, accounting for $141.3 billion in loan volume or about 27% of the total in the region. Infrastructure, project and real estate deals accounted for slightly more than two-thirds of that volume.

Given the increasing exposure banks have to Chinese property, a protracted downturn could have a knock-on effect on the banks. “A lot of mid-sized and big Chinese banks as well as foreign banks have exposure to the China property sector. A big downturn in China real estate market would affect everyone but the mainland banks have the most exposure to the property market,” said Christine Kuo, senior credit officer at Moody’s.

For now, however, the rating agency views Kaisa’s problems as being unique to the company and, at a briefing in Hong Kong on Tuesday, Simon Wong, Moody’s senior credit officer, told reporters that he didn’t think the Shenzhen’s developer’s problems would pose a systemic risk to the sector.

“If the Kaisa case is resolved satisfactorily, such as another developer coming in and potentially buying Kaisa’s assets at fair market value, I think that would also help to ease investors’ concerns,” Wong told reporters.

related

Kaisa given respite but is still in the doghouse Kaisa default triggers broader loan worries Agile woe compounds China’s property problems Cofco Land plans up to $500m placement Loan Week, February 6-12

For now though, investors and lenders are giving the sector a wide berth.

Kaisa had been subject to unexplained bans imposed by the Shenzhen government on the sale of its property projects in Shenzhen. Reports had been circulating that other developers including Fantasia and China Overseas Land & Investment have faced similar bans but the companies have since clarified that the blocked sales are due to administrative procedures by the authorities, and not violations by the companies.

Lenders could also turn wary towards small-cap companies. “China is an important market but we expect more large-cap and higher grade companies this year compared to last year given the concerns over the mid-cap sector,” said Amit Khattar, head of syndicated loans for Asia at Deutsche Bank.

Subordination risk

Kaisa’s problems expose the risks that offshore lenders face. It had initially defaulted on a $51 million loan with HSBC. While it subsequently got a waiver from the British lender, other creditors have frozen some of its onshore bank accounts, and if it came down to a default, onshore lenders would get first dibs on the assets.

Offshore lenders are often subordinated to mainland lenders as the loans are typically issued through offshore holding companies, using the so-called red chip structure.

China’s State Administration of Foreign Exchange (Safe) has made moves to take away some of that subordination risk and, in July last year, relaxed the rules to allow mainland companies to use onshore assets as collateral when raising funds offshore. However, there are restrictions, and Safe has made it clear that the proceeds have to be kept offshore.

“The change in Safe rules means that offshore lenders can get senior secured access to Chinese companies rather than just a red chip structure,” said Khattar. “It is a meaningful development but the number of companies using this has been limited by restrictions over the use of proceeds,” he added.

Lenders have been comfortable lending to offshore holding companies, provided they are perceived to be a strong credit. For example, smartphone company Xiaomi last year tested the market with a debut $1 billion loan, which attracted 29 lenders. Xiaomi is cash rich, with no onshore borrowings.

However, weaker companies are expected to come under more scrutiny now. “Lenders have become more comfortable with loans using offshore holding company structures,” said Deutsche Bank’s Khattar. “But they will be more wary about certain credits,” he added.

This year could be a more challenging one for mainland companies as Taiwanese lenders are keen to keep their exposure to mainland companies down, and could look to diversify to Indian or Southeast Asian companies. “Taiwanese banks were big investors for China loans in the past but they have pretty tight China limits at the moment,” said JP Morgan’s Li.

But amid ongoing market volatility, more companies could start tapping the loan markets as bond yields have risen. “Bond market volatility specially in the high yield market could see more high yield issuers trying to access the loan markets in 2015,” said Khattar.

¬ Haymarket Media Limited. All rights reserved.

Email this Print this Tweet this Send us your tips […]

Monarch Financial Reports Higher Income, Strong Loan Growth, and Declares Cash Dividend

CHESAPEAKE, Va., Jan. 30, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Monarch Financial Holdings, Inc. (MNRK), the bank holding company for Monarch Bank, reported improved fourth quarter and annual financial performance. The Board of Directors also announced a quarterly common stock cash dividend of $0.08 per common share, payable on February 27, 2015, to shareholders of record on February 10, 2015.

Annual 2014 highlights are:

Net income of $11,211,850, for Return on Equity of 10.95% Diluted earnings per share of $1.05 Cash dividends of $0.31 paid per share, up 29% from 2013 Loans held for investment grew $59.9 million, up 8.4% Non-performing assets at 0.28% of total assets Net Interest Margin was 4.25% $1.6 billion in mortgage loans closed, with 80% home purchases

Fourth quarter 2014 highlights are:

Quarterly net income of $2,683,163, up 24% Return on equity of 10.03% Diluted earnings per share of $0.25 Loans held for investment grew $58.9 million $446 million in mortgage loans closed with 69% home purchase

“We are pleased with our quarterly and annual financial performance, with very strong organic loan growth finally taking hold in the fourth quarter. Unlike many of our peers we have grown loans with our bankers, in our markets, and have not purchased loans to drive this growth. Mortgage production was in line with the previous year with our best year ever for purchase mortgage loan closings. We improved our performance in all three lines of business to include banking, mortgage, and wealth management,” stated Brad E. Schwartz, Chief Executive Officer. “Non-performing assets remained low, our margin improved due to asset mix and pricing discipline, and our capital grew stronger with our retention of earnings. The market has responded to our performance with price appreciation in our common stock that, when combined with the increase in our common stock dividends, produced a 14% total shareholder return for 2014.”

For 2014 net income was $11,211,850 compared to $11,091,007 for the same period in 2013, a 1% increase. The 2014 return on average equity (ROE) was 10.95%, and the return on average assets (ROA) was 1.13%. Annual diluted earnings per share were $1.05 compared to $1.08 in 2013, as our higher earnings were more than offset by the number of additional outstanding shares.

Net income was $2,683,163 for the fourth quarter of 2014 compared to $2,156,566 for the same period in 2013, a 24% increase. The quarterly annualized return on average equity (ROE) was 10.03%, and the annualized quarterly return on average assets (ROA) was 1.04 %, both metrics up from the same period a year ago. Diluted earnings per share for the fourth quarter were $0.25, up 25% from the previous year.

Total assets at December 31, 2014 were $1.07 billion, up 5% from the prior year. In 2014 loans held for investment grew 8% to $773 million and mortgage loans held for sale grew 48% to $148 million. The vast majority of the net loan growth occurred in the fourth quarter. Total deposits grew 3% to $919 million, with demand deposits growing $40 million or 15% for the year. Demand deposits now represent 33% of total deposits, an achievement driven by our dedicated cash management and banking office teams. While the current rate environment does not appropriately reward banks for a transaction-focused funding strategy, this strategy should deliver net interest margin protection when rates eventually rise.

“We are pleased to deliver over 8% quarterly and year over year loan growth. We are equally proud that we produced each and every loan and have not been tempted by participation loans or other loan purchase programs we see in the marketplace,” stated E. Neal Crawford Jr., President of Monarch Bank. “We continue to hire talented bankers and expect to continue expanding the banking team into 2015. Our Richmond and Peninsula expansion is driving quality loan growth and deposit growth while our cash management and private banking teams continue to focus on growing core deposits.”

Non-performing assets were 0.28% as of December 31, 2014 compared to 0.25% one year prior, and non-performing loans to loans held for investment were 0.37% compared to 0.31% one year prior. Non-performing assets were $3.0 million, comprised of $175 thousand 90 days or more past due and still accruing interest, $2.7 million in non-accrual loans and $144,000 in one parcel of other real estate owned that is already under contract for sale. The allowance for loan losses represents 1.16% of total loans held for investment and 311% of non-performing loans.

Average equity to average assets rose to 10.39% at year-end 2014, an increase from 9.73% one year prior. Cash dividends of $0.08 per share were paid in the fourth quarter of 2014, and a total of $0.31 per share was paid during the year, an increase of 29% over 2013. Total risk-based capital to risk weighted assets at Monarch Bank equaled 13.79%, significantly higher than the required level to meet the highest rating of “Well Capitalized” by federal banking regulators. We also already meet the new Basel III capital standards for a well-capitalized bank. Monarch was again awarded the highest 5-Star “Superior” rating by Bauer Financial, an independent third-party bank rating agency that rates banks on safety and soundness.

Net interest income, our number one driver of profitability, was flat for the year driven by the large volume of mortgage loans held for sale in the first six months of 2013 compared to the balances carried in 2014. These balances are driven by mortgage loan closings. Excluding the mortgage loans held for sale volatility, the net interest income from core banking operations increased 5.9% or $1.9 million. Our net interest margin for 2014 was 4.25%, up from 4.10% due to asset mix, loan and deposit pricing, mortgage loans held for sale pricing, fee income capture, and the additional income from loans previously on non-accrual status. Loan growth that occurred late in the year had minimal impact on net interest income even though it should contribute to net interest income on a going forward basis.

Non-interest income decreased $2.8 million in 2014 over the previous year driven by lower mortgage revenues, which was more than offset by a reduction of $3.6 million in commissions and incentives. Net overhead, or the difference between non-interest income and non-interest expenses, increased only $372 thousand or 1.7% due to increased spending for facilities, technology, technology risk management, compliance and marketing. Salaries and benefits were held flat for the year, a significant accomplishment with our increased benefits costs. Investment revenues related to Monarch Bank Private Wealth totaled $1.6 million for the year compared to $1.1 million the previous year, a noteworthy increase. The Company is recognized by Raymond James Financial Services as a top performing bank investment program, with $235 million in assets under management accumulated since the formation of Monarch Bank Private Wealth in the third quarter of 2012.

Mortgage revenue remains the number one driver of non-interest income. $446 million in mortgage loans were closed during the fourth quarter of 2014 (69% purchase) compared to $350 million in the fourth quarter of 2013 (80% purchase). Monarch closed $1.6 billion in mortgage loans during 2014 compared to $2.0 billion in 2012. While volumes year over year declined approximately 20%, revenues from mortgage lending declined only 5% due to a strong focus on loan product mix, secondary market pricing, and fee income.

“Our focus on the purchase market paid off in 2014 when we had the best year of purchase mortgage business in our history. We closed $1.3 billion in home purchase loans and $0.3 billion in refinances, and altogether closed over 6,000 loans during the year,” stated William T. Morrison, CEO of Monarch Mortgage. “The year 2015 is beginning with an attractive rate environment and a much stronger pipeline of activity, and we expect it to be a great year for our mortgage operations.”

Monarch Financial Holdings, Inc. is the one-bank holding company for Monarch Bank. Monarch Bank is a community bank with ten banking offices in Chesapeake, Virginia Beach, Norfolk, and Williamsburg, Virginia. Monarch Bank also has loan production offices in Newport News and Richmond, Virginia. OBX Bank, a division of Monarch Bank, operates offices in Kitty Hawk and Nags Head, North Carolina. Monarch Mortgage and our affiliated mortgage companies have over thirty offices with locations in Virginia, North Carolina, Maryland, and South Carolina. Our subsidiaries/ divisions include Monarch Bank, OBX Bank, Monarch Mortgage (secondary mortgage origination), OBX Bank Mortgage (secondary mortgage origination), Coastal Home Mortgage, LLC (secondary mortgage origination), Monarch Bank Private Wealth (investment, trust, planning and private banking), Monarch Investments (investment and insurance solutions), Real Estate Security Agency, LLC (title agency) and Monarch Capital, LLC (commercial mortgage brokerage). The shares of common stock of Monarch Financial Holdings, Inc. are publicly traded on the Nasdaq Capital Market under the symbol “MNRK”.

This press release may contain “forward-looking statements,” within the meaning of federal securities laws that involve significant risks and uncertainties. Statements herein are based on certain assumptions and analyses by the Company and are factors it believes are appropriate in the circumstances. Actual results could differ materially from those contained in or implied by such statements for a variety of reasons including, but not limited to: changes in interest rates; changes in accounting principles, policies, or guidelines; significant changes in the economic scenario: significant changes in regulatory requirements; and significant changes in securities markets. Consequently, all forward-looking statements made herein are qualified by these cautionary statements and the cautionary language in the Company’s most recent Form 10-K and 10-Q reports and other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company does not undertake to update forward-looking statements to reflect circumstances or events that occur after the date the forward-looking statements are made.

Consolidated Balance Sheets Monarch Financial Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries (In thousands) Unaudited

December 31, September 30, June 30, March 31, December 31,
2014 2014 2014 2014 2013 ASSETS:

Cash and due from banks $ 14,503 $ 21,083 $ 19,661 $ 18,510 $ 18,971 Interest bearing bank balances 49,761 58,207 37,166 37,033 31,955 Federal funds sold 1,135 3,938 29,761 84,232 53,985

Investment securities, at fair value 23,725 25,137 23,773 23,197 48,822

Mortgage loans held for sale 147,690 138,590 156,584 92,839 99,718

Loans held for investment, net of unearned income 772,590 713,667 700,159 715,088 712,671 Less: allowance for loan losses (8,949) (8,977) (9,070) (9,213) (9,061) Net loans 763,641 704,690 691,089 705,875 703,610

Bank premises and equipment, net 30,247 30,368 31,407 29,902 28,882 Restricted equity securities, at cost 3,633 3,179 3,169 3,156 3,683 Bank owned life insurance 9,687 9,587 7,526 7,467 7,409 Goodwill 775 775 775 775 775 Intangible assets, net — — 15 60 104 Accrued interest receivable and other assets 21,940 23,688 22,973 19,673 18,786 Total assets $ 1,066,737 $ 1,019,242 $ 1,023,899 $ 1,022,719 $ 1,016,700

LIABILITIES:

Demand deposits–non-interest bearing $ 235,301 $ 252,286 $ 240,348 $ 221,357 $ 206,891 Demand deposits–interest bearing 66,682 53,093 51,563 55,949 55,528 Money market deposits 369,221 365,041 377,096 367,590 374,462 Savings deposits 20,003 25,211 24,539 24,327 22,137 Time deposits 228,207 189,142 197,747 224,947 234,100 Total deposits 919,414 884,773 891,293 894,170 893,118

FHLB borrowings 1,075 1,100 1,125 1,150 1,175 Federal funds 10,000 — — — — Trust preferred subordinated debt 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 Accrued interest payable and other liabilities 18,710 18,145 18,650 17,422 14,661 Total liabilities 959,199 914,018 921,068 922,742 918,954

STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY:

Common stock 51,864 51,735 51,624 51,584 51,432 Capital in excess of par value 8,336 7,966 7,675 7,357 7,069 Retained earnings 47,354 45,523 43,566 41,232 39,437 Accumulated other comprehensive loss (102) (135) (159) (314) (419) Total Monarch Financial Holdings, Inc. stockholders’ equity 107,452 105,089 102,706 99,859 97,519 Noncontrolling interest 86 135 125 118 227 Total equity 107,538 105,224 102,831 99,977 97,746 Total liabilities and stockholders’ equity $ 1,066,737 $ 1,019,242 $ 1,023,899 $ 1,022,719 $ 1,016,700

Common shares outstanding at period end 10,652,475 10,646,873 10,624,668 10,619,444 10,502,323

Nonvested shares of common stock included in commons shares outstanding 279,750 299,910 299,910 302,710 215,960

Book value per common share at period end (1) $ 10.10 $ 9.87 $ 9.67 $ 9.40 $ 9.29 Tangible book value per common share at period end (2) $ 10.02 $ 9.80 $ 9.59 $ 9.33 $ 9.20 Closing market price $ 13.75 $ 12.56 $ 11.72 $ 12.26 $ 12.31

Total risk based capital – Consolidated company 13.79% 14.16% 14.29% 14.27% 13.91% Total risk based capital – Bank 13.81% 14.18% 14.31% 14.30% 13.95%

(1) Book value per common share is defined as stockholders’ equity divided by common shares outstanding. (2) Tangible book value per common share is defined as stockholders’ equity less goodwill and other intangibles divided by commons shares outstanding

Consolidated Statements of Income Monarch Financial Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries Unaudited
Three Months Ended Year Ended
December 31, December 31,
2014 2013 2014 2013 INTEREST INCOME:

Interest on federal funds sold $ 4,980 $ 42,283 $ 84,850 $ 115,963 Interest on other bank accounts 92,156 28,626 244,702 58,027 Dividends on equity securities 33,545 67,540 106,955 277,700 Interest on investment securities 100,957 60,311 359,604 230,496 Interest on mortgage loans held for sale 1,376,920 1,090,070 4,866,818 7,021,186 Interest and fees on loans held for investment 9,752,472 9,388,407 37,327,978 36,645,065 Total interest income 11,361,030 10,677,237 42,990,907 44,348,437 INTEREST EXPENSE:

Interest on deposits 722,537 905,970 3,185,965 3,936,203 Interest on trust preferred subordinated debt 46,337 122,850 416,233 491,910 Interest on other borrowings 16,615 15,002 58,966 358,345 Total interest expense 785,489 1,043,822 3,661,164 4,786,458 NET INTEREST INCOME 10,575,541 9,633,415 39,329,743 39,561,979 PROVISION FOR LOAN LOSSES — — — —

NET INTEREST INCOME AFTER PROVISION FOR LOAN LOSSES 10,575,541 9,633,415 39,329,743 39,561,979

NON-INTEREST INCOME:

Mortgage banking income 16,210,774 13,276,836 62,440,013 65,672,402 Service charges and fees 489,974 502,373 2,058,262 1,941,926 Title income 216,895 124,774 669,785 789,253 Investment and insurance income 382,774 336,002 1,592,398 1,053,429 Other income 72,366 111,924 318,783 425,261 Total non-interest income 17,372,783 14,351,909 67,079,241 69,882,271 NON-INTEREST EXPENSE:

Salaries and employee benefits 8,798,996 8,772,157 34,134,998 34,112,834 Commissions and incentives 6,926,507 5,248,131 24,754,633 28,344,347 Occupancy and equipment 2,412,086 2,220,634 9,548,543 8,449,912 Loan expense 1,676,134 1,526,317 6,652,007 7,891,835 Marketing expense 990,383 807,717 3,111,535 2,873,259 Data processing 715,057 459,681 2,272,785 1,696,535 Telephone 296,396 314,984 1,226,389 1,184,894 Other expenses 1,789,789 1,212,731 6,778,966 6,357,202 Total non-interest expense 23,605,348 20,562,352 88,479,856 90,910,818

INCOME BEFORE TAXES 4,342,976 3,422,972 17,929,128 18,533,432 Income tax provision (1,616,093) (1,179,017) (6,490,273) (6,386,040) NET INCOME 2,726,883 2,243,955 11,438,855 12,147,392

Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest (43,720) (87,389) (227,005) (1,056,385) NET INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO MONARCH FINANCIAL HOLDINGS, INC $2,683,163 $2,156,566 $11,211,850 $11,091,007

NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE:

Basic $ 0.25 $ 0.21 $ 1.06 $ 1.09 Diluted $ 0.25 $ 0.20 $ 1.05 $ 1.08

Weighted average basic shares outstanding 10,648,184 10,486,056 10,619,443 10,167,156 Weighted average diluted shares outstanding 10,689,219 10,535,313 10,658,600 10,299,471

Return on average assets 1.04% 0.86% 1.13% 1.07% Return on average stockholders’ equity 10.03% 8.88% 10.95% 11.97%

Financial Highlights Monarch Financial Holdings, Inc. and Subsidiaries
(Dollars in thousands, For the Quarter Ended except per share data) December 31, September 30, June 30, March 31, December 31,
2014 2014 2014 2014 2013 EARNINGS

Interest income $ 11,361 $ 10,639 $ 10,557 $ 10,434 $ 10,677 Interest expense (786) (928) (977) (971) (1,044) Net interest income 10,575 9,711 9,580 9,463 9,633 Provision for loan losses — — — — — Noninterest income – mortgage banking income 16,211 16,658 17,369 12,202 13,277 Noninterest income – other 1,162 1,241 1,130 1,106 1,075 Noninterest expense (23,605) (23,121) (23,007) (18,747) (20,562) Pre-tax net income 4,343 4,489 5,072 4,024 3,423 Minority interest in net income (44) (46) (121) (16) (87) Income taxes (1,616) (1,635) (1,767) (1,471) (1,179) Net income $ 2,683 $ 2,808 $ 3,184 $ 2,537 $ 2,157

PER COMMON SHARE

Earnings per share – basic $ 0.25 $ 0.26 $ 0.30 $ 0.24 $ 0.21 Earnings per share – diluted 0.25 0.26 0.30 0.24 0.20 Common stock – per share dividends 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.07 0.07 Average Basic Shares Outstanding 10,648,184 10,635,275 10,620,869 10,600,766 10,486,056 Average Diluted Shares Outstanding 10,689,219 10,670,507 10,660,217 10,641,782 10,535,313

ALLOWANCE FOR LOAN LOSSES

Beginning balance $ 8,977 $ 9,070 $ 9,213 $ 9,061 $ 11,228 Provision for loan losses — — — — — Charge-offs (174) (181) (184) (12) (2,252) Recoveries 146 88 41 164 85 Net charge-offs (28) (93) (143) 152 (2,167) Ending balance $ 8,949 $ 8,977 $ 9,070 $ 9,213 $ 9,061

COMPOSITION OF RISK ASSETS

Nonperforming loans:

90 days past due $ 175 $ 243 $ 499 $ 759 $ 472 Nonaccrual loans 2,705 2,180 3,028 1,718 1,740 OREO 144 767 144 302 302 Nonperforming assets 3,024 3,190 3,671 2,779 2,514

ASSET QUALITY RATIOS

Nonperforming assets to total assets 0.28% 0.31% 0.36% 0.27% 0.25% Nonperforming loans to total loans 0.37 0.34 0.50 0.35 0.31 Allowance for loan losses to total loans held for investment 1.16 1.26 1.30 1.29 1.27 Allowance for loan losses to nonperforming loans 310.73 370.49 257.16 371.94 409.63 Annualized net charge-offs to average loans held for investment 0.02 0.05 0.08 -0.09 1.25

FINANCIAL RATIOS

Return on average assets 1.04% 1.11% 1.29% 1.06% 0.86% Return on average stockholders’ equity 10.03 10.72 12.63 10.46 8.88 Net interest margin (FTE) 4.42 4.18 4.18 4.25 4.13 Non-interest revenue/Total revenue 60.5 62.7 63.7 56.1 57.3 Efficiency – Consolidated 84.5 83.7 81.8 82.1 85.5 Efficiency – Bank only 61.2 61.7 63.9 59.9 60.4 Average equity to average assets 10.39 10.40 10.18 10.13 9.73

PERIOD END BALANCES (Amounts in thousands)

Total mortgage loans held for sale $ 147,690 $ 138,590 $ 156,584 $ 92,839 $ 99,718 Total loans held for investment 772,590 713,667 700,159 715,088 712,671 Interest-earning assets 1,003,332 945,697 949,872 956,160 952,981 Assets 1,066,737 1,019,242 1,023,899 1,022,719 1,016,700 Total deposits 919,414 884,773 891,293 894,170 893,118 Other borrowings 21,075 11,100 11,125 11,150 11,175 Stockholders’ equity 107,451 105,089 102,706 99,859 97,519

AVERAGE BALANCES (Amounts in thousands)

Total mortgage loans held for sale $ 131,471 $ 138,382 $ 116,851 $ 70,856 $ 104,104 Total loans held for investment 725,093 701,137 698,851 704,917 695,074 Interest-earning assets 958,904 930,420 927,552 910,929 935,059 Assets 1,021,591 999,358 993,003 970,815 990,734 Total deposits 883,478 867,980 867,217 848,969 869,113 Other borrowings 14,575 11,124 11,150 11,174 11,199 Stockholders’ equity 106,088 103,908 101,092 98,374 96,415

MORTGAGE PRODUCTION (Amounts in thousands)

Dollar volume of mortgage loans closed $ 445,846 $ 440,784 $ 446,863 $ 271,233 $ 349,695 Percentage of refinance based on dollar volume 30.9% 16.0% 15.0% 19.1% 20.3%

Financials IndustryBanking & Budgetingmortgage loans Contact:

Brad E. Schwartz - (757) 389-5111, www.monarchbank.com

[…]

Soccer-Billionaire's cash injection to lead Hamburg out of crisis

* Billionaire turns loan into club stake

* Stadium to get back its original name (Updates with more details, quotes)

By Karolos Grohmann

BERLIN, Jan 22 (Reuters) – Billionaire Klaus-Michael Kuehne has acquired a 7.5 percent stake at former European champions Hamburg SV after pumping in 18.75 million euros in investment and also bagged the stadium naming rights, the club said on Thursday.

Hamburg, struggling to avoid relegation in the past few seasons, has been dogged by financial problems and a string of expensive but unsuccessful transfers.

“I am very happy that we could successfully wrap up our talks about me becoming a shareholder,” Kuehne said in a statement. “I hope I can contribute to turning Hamburg around.”

Kuehne essentially turned part of his 25 million euro ($29.09 million) loan to Hamburg last summer that allowed them to sign Lewis Holtby, Swiss international Valon Behrami and U.S. international Julian Green among others, into a stake in the former German champions.

His investment is not only a much-needed shot in the arm for Hamburg, pushing back commitments for the indebted club, but a major hope for the long-term future of the only Bundesliga club to never have played in the second division since the top league’s creation in 1963.

The billionaire will also give the stadium its old name ‘Volksparkstadion’ back from July 1, 2015 after acquiring the naming rights “initially” for four years.

“For me as a Hamburg fan it was a matter of the heart that the home of the club has again its traditional name,” Kuehne said in a club statement.

“I wish that the club can enjoy success at the Volksparkstadion like in the past.

Hamburg’s stadium, currently called the Imtech Arena, was known as the Volksparkstadion until 2001.

“We are continuing our financial consolidation with this move and have reached an important milestone,” Karl Gernandt, Hamburg football board chairman, told reporters.

“We will continue working so that Hamburg can win back its ability to be competitive on all levels in the Bundesliga.”

Hamburg are 14th in the league, two points above last-placed Freiburg. The Bundesliga resumes on Jan. 30.

($1 = 0.8595 Euros) (Reporting by Karolos Grohmann,; Editing by Amlan Chakraborty and Pritha Sarkar)

SoccerSports & RecreationHamburg SV […]

RadioShack May Plan Bankruptcy Filing; Difficult Times Ahead – Analyst Blog

As reported by The Wall Street Journal, beleaguered electronic and mobile products retailer, RadioShack Corp. (RSH), may possibly file for bankruptcy protection in early February. The company has been struggling to raise enough cash and credit to stay afloat, despite desperate attempts to turn around business over the last 18 months. ;

Apparently, the company is considering selling its assets on bankruptcy grounds and is in talks with a private-equity firm that could buy the same. However, there are chances that the talks might not materialize, in the event of which the company may consider alternatives like near-term recapitalization or debt restructuring.

According to a reliable source, RadioShack has also reached out to potential lenders that can help with a loan to fund the company’s operations during the bankruptcy case. Earlier, The Wall Street Journal had reported that Salus Capital Partners has agreed to offer $500 million to RadioShack for the same.

RadioShack’s core consumer electronics (including digital TVs, digital music players, and digital cameras) retail business is on a secular downtrend and is unlikely to recover in the near future. Loss of foot traffic is also taking a toll on RadioShack’s mobility business – a platform on which the company had been banking for future growth.

In Sep 2014, the company announced that it is running out of cash and may file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy if it fails to improve its cash position.

In the recent past, RadioShack had undertaken several strategic moves to turnaround its business. The company had redesigned its retail website with new deals in the offering. Also, management had been focusing on reducing costs, which includes closing up to 200 stores every year over the next three years; lowering rent expense through negotiations with landlords; reducing compensation expense by optimizing labor hours and store operating hours; and reviewing other expenses to identify cost-reduction opportunities. Unfortunately, none of these methods has led RadioShack out of the dark.

Dismal Quarterly Numbers

Investors’ apprehension about RadioShack’s future increased further following dismal financial numbers in the third quarter of fiscal 2015, reported on Dec 11, 2014. The company’s adjusted loss per share of $1.23 was much wider than the Zacks Consensus Estimate of a loss of $1.07 per share. Meanwhile, total revenue came in at $650.2 million, down 16.1% year over year and considerably below the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $724 million.

At the end of the reported quarter, RadioShack had only $43.3 million in cash & cash equivalent compared with $296.6 million at the end of Oct 31, 2013. This hints at the possibility that the company is fast losing cash and may not be in a position to fund its operations beyond the ‘very near term’, unless it formulates a concrete plan to increase its cash. Moreover, total debt at the end of the quarter was much higher at $841.4 million versus $613 million at the end of Feb 1, 2014. Click here for the complete fiscal third-quarter earnings report >>

The Bottom Line

Unfortunately, all efforts of this Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) stock to ramp up sales have fallen flat due to rapid changes in consumer buying trends. Buyers nowadays prefer purchasing online to visiting retail stores. Moreover, most consumers prefer tablets and smartphones today, which are less profitable for the retail industry.

We believe, under such circumstances, it might be difficult for RadioShack to make a substantial turnaround in its business in the face of stiff competition from retail giants like Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN), Best Buy Co., Inc. (BBY) and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT).

Want the latest recommendations from Zacks Investment Research? Today, you can download 7 Best Stocks for the Next 30 Days. Click to get this free report
;
WAL-MART STORES (WMT): Free Stock Analysis Report
;
AMAZON.COM INC (AMZN): Free Stock Analysis Report
;
BEST BUY (BBY): Free Stock Analysis Report
;
RADIOSHACK CORP (RSH): Free Stock Analysis Report
;
To read this article on Zacks.com click here.
;
Zacks Investment Research

FinanceInvestment & Company InformationRadioShackThe Wall Street Journal […]

Putin Bailout Haunts Ukraine With Early Repayment Clause

The risk that Russia will seek early repayment of a $3 billion bond is adding to pressure on Ukraine as it races to secure more International Monetary Fund loans.

Russia has the right to call the Eurobond, bought a year ago to avert a default, if Ukraine’s public debt tops 60 percent of gross domestic product. The ratio may jump to 70 percent by Dec. 31, Moody’s Investors Service said Oct. 30.

While Russian President Vladimir Putin said last month he won’t use the redemption clause on the notes, part of a bailout package signed with deposed President Viktor Yanukovych, there’s no guarantee he won’t change his mind, said Paul McNamara at GAM UK Ltd. That could weigh on Ukrainian finances, strained by a war against pro-Russian separatists, political wrangling after October elections and uncertainty about further IMF aid.

“I wouldn’t rely on Russian officials’ statements about the bail bond,” McNamara said Dec. 3 by phone from London. “There’s a real prospect of a standoff between Russia and the IMF, which will find it hard to justify to the western countries the covering of an early repayment.”

Ukraine’s bonds lost 9.3 percent this quarter through yesterday, the most after Venezuela among 58 nations in the Bloomberg USD Emerging Market Sovereign Bond Index. (BEMS) The benchmark note due July 2017 fell 13 cents on the dollar in the period, touching a record-low 73.5 cents on Dec. 3. It traded at 74.3 cents by 10:13 a.m. in Kiev, yielding 22.8 percent.

IMF Requirements

The new government of Premier Arseniy Yatsenyuk, approved by lawmakers this week, needs to adopt a 2015 budget and tax laws complying with IMF requirements to qualify for the next $2.8 billion disbursement. Ukraine needs the cash, part of a $17 billion loan program, to repay other debt, buy heating fuel for winter and stem the hryvnia’s 46 percent slump this year.

Russia, which annexed Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula in March, has repeatedly denied accusations by NATO and the European Union that it’s supporting the insurgency across the border, which has killed more than 4,300 people and displaced 500,000.

The government in Moscow will determine whether Ukraine has crossed the 60 percent debt threshold based on IMF estimates expected early next year, Russian Finance Ministry official Andrey Bokarev said Nov. 27. The ministry didn’t immediately reply to an e-mail seeking comment yesterday.

‘Whole Amount’

The earliest Russia can try to call the bonds is after the ministry publishes preliminary 2014 GDP data in March, Halyna Pakhachuk, head of the Ukrainian Finance Ministry’s debt department, said yesterday. The government in Kiev has the right to wait with the payment until December 2015, when final GDP data is to be released, she said in a phone interview.

“Our 2015 budget will envisage the whole amount needed for the repayment,” Pakhachuk said.

Russia probably won’t call the bond early, according to Regis Chatellier, a London-based director of emerging-market credit strategy at Societe Generale SA, and Lutz Roehmeyer, a money-manager at LBB Invest in Berlin.

“Putin does not want to be seen as the one who triggered a default,” Chatellier said Dec. 3 by e-mail. SocGen has an underweight stance on Ukrainian debt. “The pressure on Ukraine would come very soon anyway as the bond matures next December.”

Towel ‘Thrown’

While Ukraine will probably avoid default, it will seek to re-negotiate debt terms in 2016 or 2017 to prolong maturities by three to five years, LBB’s Roehmeyer said Dec. 1 by phone. Current bond prices are already reflecting such a scenario, according to the money manager, who oversees $1.1 billion of debt from emerging markets including Ukraine.

“Investors are really fed up and most have thrown in the towel,” he said. “Everyone is realizing how far away from each other both sides are and that Russia keeps sending troops.”

Without more IMF payouts, Ukraine can’t stop the hryvnia depreciation that’s stoking bad loans and boosting the future costs of rescuing ailing banks, according to Marco Ruijer, who helps oversee $7.5 billion of emerging-market debt at ING Investment Management in The Hague.

“If the government implements reforms then the IMF will be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and save them,” he said Dec. 1 by phone. “Russia could move forward the payment. It is a risk, but not one of my main risks.”

Should Russia call the bond, and if Ukraine is unable or unwilling to repay early, this could trigger a restructuring affecting other debt, according to Timothy Ash, London-based chief emerging-markets economist at Standard Bank Group Ltd. Potential losses for Russia on the $3 billion bond may not be a concern for Putin, Ash said Dec. 2 by e-mail.

“This is small change for Russia in the bigger scheme of things, and given its ambitions in Ukraine,” Ash wrote. “You have to ask why it included the debt-to-GDP trigger in the documentation anyway.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Krystof Chamonikolas in Prague at kchamonikola@bloomberg.net; Natasha Doff in London at ndoff@bloomberg.net; Volodymyr Verbyany in Kiev at vverbyany1@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Wojciech Moskwa at wmoskwa@bloomberg.net; Daliah Merzaban at dmerzaban@bloomberg.net Chris Kirkham

Press spacebar to pause and continue. Press esc to stop.

[…]

Need a $10,000 cash advance? Square now an option

Best known for making credit card readers that plug into mobile phones and tablets, Square has been extending merchant cash advances to small businesses already using its payment-processing software and systems through a program it calls Square Capital. In exchange for a lump-sum payment, a small business agrees to pay back to Square a fixed amount plus the original cash advance, deducted from the business as a percentage of its daily credit card sales.

This type of funding fills a niche, since it is an option for small businesses like Juxtapose, which cannot access conventional loans. As a result, lenders can charge higher interest rates than banks.

Read MoreStarved for cash, Main Street turns to alternative lenders

Since May, the San Francisco-based company has issued these advances to roughly 10,000 small businesses using $50 million of its own cash, said Square spokeswoman Faryl Ury. Eligibility is based on a business’s monthly sales and history with Square. Most of these cash advances have been for less than $10,000, and Square typically takes 4 percent, 7 percent or 10 percent of a small business’s daily card sales until the advance is paid off, Ury said.

In August, Victory Park Capital handed Square Capital a hefty investment to ramp up the program and extend more cash advances to more merchants. According to Ury, Square isn’t releasing the exact amount of the investment, but the cash from Victory Park will allow Square to “extend hundreds of millions of dollars as quickly as possible.”

The investment comes at a time when Square finds itself in flux. While the company continues to grow—Ury said Square employs more than 800 people and processes “tens of billions of dollars” annually—the company still has not turned a profit. Another, separate investment of $100 million into Square, announced in September, brings the company’s valuation to $6 billion, but Square is also competing in an increasingly crowded payments sector against the likes of PayPal, Google and now Apple.

“The pressure is on for them to really start figuring out how to keep merchants, and keep merchants that are processing on a regular basis and at a respectable volume,” said Phillip Parker, a former independent agent in the credit card–processing industry and founder of the merchant-account reviewing website CardPaymentOptions.com.

Read MoreSquare: CNBC Disruptor 50

[…]

RadioShack Weighs $585M Financing Offer Amid Cash Woes

According to the Wall Street Journal, electronic and mobile products retailer RadioShack Corp. (RSH) is assessing a $585 million financing package in order to save itself from bankruptcy. The financing package is headed by UBS AG (UBS) and hedge fund Standard General LP.

UBS will organize $325 million, whereas Standard General will give $260 million, which will substitute a $585 million loan and credit facility from GE Capital, a part of General Electric Company (GE). Standard General and UBS do not plan to shut down stores. Rather, they will reportedly bolster the pace of renovations sought by the beleaguered company.

Last Thursday, RadioShack had revealed its dwindling cash position and the possibility of filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, going ahead, if it fails to improve its cash balance.

Despite attempts to turn around its business over the last 18 months, the company has continued to struggle. RadioShack’s core consumer electronics (including digital TVs, digital music players and digital cameras) retail business has been on a secular downtrend and is unlikely to recover in the near future. Moreover, loss of foot traffic is taking a toll on RadioShack’s mobility business – a platform which the company had been banking on for future growth.

Investors’ apprehension about RadioShack’s future increased further following dismal financial numbers reported for the second quarter of fiscal 2015, on Sep 11. The company’s adjusted loss per share of $1.00 was much wider than the Zacks Consensus Estimate of a loss of 59 cents. Meanwhile, total revenue came in at $673.8 million, down 21.8% year over year and below the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $742 million. At the end of the quarter, RadioShack had only $30.5 million in cash & cash equivalent compared with $109.6 million at the end of Feb 1, 2014.

Notably, comparable-store sales for company-operated stores and kiosks (stores and kiosks that have been operational for at least a year) were down 16.9% in the reported quarter, mainly affected by traffic declines and a slowdown in the mobility business.

RadioShack currently has a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold).

Read the Full Research Report on RSH
Read the Full Research Report on UBS
Read the Full Research Report on GE

Zacks Investment Research

Personal Investing Ideas & StrategiesProfessional ServicesRadioShackGeneral Electric CompanyUBS AG […]

Global Cash Set to Acquire Multimedia Games for $1.2B

Global Cash Access Holdings (GCA) recently agreed to acquire Multimedia Games Holding Company (MGAM) for approximately $1.2 billion or $36.50 per share. This represents a 31.4% premium to Multimedia Games’ closing price of $27.78 on Sep 5.

Las Vegas-based Global Cash provides services such as cash advance, ATM cash withdrawals and check services to gaming industry companies. The company also sells slot machines and jackpot kiosks.

Multimedia Games primarily sells slot machines. As of Jun 30, 2014, the company’s installed base was approximately 13,167 units throughout North America.

The deal is expected to be immediately accretive to Global Cash Holdings. The combined entity is expected to earn cost synergies of approximately $30 million, favorably impacting profitability.

The combined entity is forecasted to yield earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (:EBITDA) of $217 million and revenues of $800 million. The proposed merger is expected to be completed in early 2015.

Per Global Cash, the deal will diversify its revenue base, broaden product portfolio and enhance recurring revenue base (approximately 80%) thereby expanding margins. Global Cash Holdings believes that the acquisition provides it a significant cross-selling opportunity and will help it to penetrate new markets.

Global Cash announced that it has received financing commitment from Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank for $800 million Term B loan, $400 million Senior Notes and a revolving credit facility of $50 million.

However, the debt financing will significantly leverage Global Cash’s balance sheet. As of Jun 30, 2014, Global Cash had cash & cash equivalents of $162 million and borrowings of $96 million.

Currently, gaming operators are replacing existing machines at a much slower rate than they have historically, primarily due to the challenging environment and the need to preserve cash. Frequent consolidations have also become a norm as large established players continue to search for distressed companies for cheap.

Scientific Games (SGMS) recently agreed to buy Bally Technologies (BYI), while Italian operator GTECH Spa is in the process of acquiring slot maker International Game Technology. We believe that the current deal makes Global Cash an attractive acquisition candidate in these sluggish market conditions.

Currently, Global Cash has a Zacks Rank #4 (Sell).

Read the Full Research Report on SGMS
Read the Full Research Report on BYI
Read the Full Research Report on GCA
Read the Full Research Report on MGAM

Zacks Investment Research

Mergers, Acquisitions & TakeoversInvestment & Company Information […]