What is the financial state of Princess and CCL

[caribill]

Hi caribill, I got my info from 3 sources, Forbes, Yahoo Finance and Reuters and 24% for total family holdings is the best I can come up with.

 

 

From the 2014 Annual Meeting proxy statement:

 

Micky Arison 28.2% of CCL stock

M.A. 1994 B shares, L.P. 17.0%

M.A. 1994 B shares, Inc. 17.0%

 

(Guess what the M.A. stands for in the previous two lines.)

 

This adds up to 52.2% of CCL shares, 48.4% of voting power.

[bluesea321]

Hi caribill, I got my info from 3 sources, Forbes, Yahoo Finance and Reuters and 24% for total family holdings is the best I can come up with.

 

 

From the 2014 Annual Meeting proxy statement:

 

Micky Arison 28.2% of CCL stock

M.A. 1994 B shares, L.P. 17.0%

M.A. 1994 B shares, Inc. 17.0%

 

(Guess what the M.A. stands for in the previous two lines.)

 

This adds up to 52.2% of CCL shares, 48.4% of voting power.

 

Hmmm…. First, the numbers you mentioned do not add up (28.2%+17%+17% = 62.2%, a simple miscalculation). More importantly however, I suggest reading the proxy statement again in more detail (link here: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=140690&p=irol-reportsother4 Scroll down and look for Carnival Corporation & plc Notice of Annual Meetings and Proxy Statement dated 3/7/2014). On Page 20, right above the ownership table that you quoted, there is the following statement:

 

“Micky Arison, Chairman of the board of each of Carnival Corporation and Carnival plc, certain other members of the Arison family and trusts for their benefit (collectively, the “Principal Shareholders”), beneficially own shares representing approximately 33.5% of the voting power of Carnival Corporation and approximately 25.6% of the combined voting power of Carnival Corporation & plc” (Red emphasis mine).

 

While MA invariably stands for Micky Arison, other individuals or entities besides the family own parts of the “M.A. 1994 B shares, L.P. and M.A. 1994 B shares, Inc. Note that Arison and family own no Carnival plc shares so their combined voting power is essentially the same as their ownership of “Carnival Corp and plc”.

 

As I mentioned in my original post, Arison and family are in the process of selling a portion of their holdings. Five million shares have recently sold and the remaining five million are set to sell on a scheduled SEC timeframe. According to Reuters (link here: http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/02/28/carnival-corp-arison-idUSnPnCLwvBmx+164+PRN20140228 ) “the Arison family and related entities will remain beneficial owners of approximately 188 million Shares, constituting approximately 24% of the total combined voting rights of Carnival Corporation & plc.” (Red emphasis mine).

 

I think I’ll stick with my original 24% estimate.

Edited May 30, 2014 by bluesea321

[swedish weave]

With all the statistics and mumbo jumbo being posted, We are drifting away from the original question about the financial status of CCL.

 

Look at the debt equity ratio for a true picture of which cruise lines are in stable financial condition.

 

Carnival debt is about 1/3 of its value while RCCL debt is around 90% of its value.

[bluesea321]

With all the statistics and mumbo jumbo being posted, We are drifting away from the original question about the financial status of CCL.

 

Look at the debt equity ratio for a true picture of which cruise lines are in stable financial condition.

 

Carnival debt is about 1/3 of its value while RCCL debt is around 90% of its value.

 

You seem to be fixated on the debt to equity ratio which is only one metric of the whole financial position. I don’t know where CCL or RCL will be in the years to come but RCL appears to be doing pretty well with its leverage.

 

RCL made $2.40 per share in 2013 – CCL made $1.39.

RCL made $0.21 per share in the 1Q 2014 – CCL lost $.02 per share.

RCL stock went up 34% in 2013 – CCL stock went up 7%.

 

RCL could go belly up this year but it sure was the better investment in 2013. It was also the better investment in the last 5 years, the last 10 years and the last 15 years.

 

CCL is stable all right – its stock is trading at the same price today that it had 10 or even 15 years ago (actually it is slightly lower now than then). Recall that we were in a major recession 5 years ago - CCL is up 57% in the last 5 years but before anyone gets too excited about that, RCL is up 267% in the same 5 years. This may seem like mumbo jumbo to you but it looks like solid financial facts to me… ;)

[caribill]

 

RCL made $2.40 per share in 2013 – CCL made $1.39.

 

Not a good way to compare as it depends on the number of shares.

 

If RCL stock was to split 2 for 1, then there would be twice as many shares and in a similar year the earnings would be $1.20 per share, less than Princess instead of more than Princess.

[swedish weave]

You seem to be fixated on the debt to equity ratio which is only one metric of the whole financial position. I don’t know where CCL or RCL will be in the years to come but RCL appears to be doing pretty well with its leverage.

 

RCL made $2.40 per share in 2013 – CCL made $1.39.

RCL made $0.21 per share in the 1Q 2014 – CCL lost $.02 per share.

RCL stock went up 34% in 2013 – CCL stock went up 7%.

 

RCL could go belly up this year but it sure was the better investment in 2013. It was also the better investment in the last 5 years, the last 10 years and the last 15 years.

 

CCL is stable all right – its stock is trading at the same price today that it had 10 or even 15 years ago (actually it is slightly lower now than then). Recall that we were in a major recession 5 years ago - CCL is up 57% in the last 5 years but before anyone gets too excited about that, RCL is up 267% in the same 5 years. This may seem like mumbo jumbo to you but it looks like solid financial facts to me… ;)

 

CCL is in position to do "in house financing". RCCL is not.

 

A company or corporation that has solid and stable finances can ride through the rough spots in the economy. Those who are mired in debt are more likely to fold up or be bought out in rough times.

 

Another factor that the "experts" don't talk about is the number of companies Carnival has absorbed over the years.

Edited May 31, 2014 by swedish weave

[bluesea321]

If RCL stock was to split 2 for 1, then there would be twice as many shares and in a similar year the earnings would be $1.20 per share, less than Princess instead of more than Princess.

 

True but there have been no splits for either RCL or CCL in over 15 years. The Price to Earnings ratio would be a better descriptor but was trying to avoid "mombo jumbo" statistics, ha, ha... :rolleyes: The P/E is more favorable to RCL also.

 

It is difficult to escape the facts I posted:

"RCL could go belly up this year but it sure was the better investment in 2013. It was also the better investment in the last 5 years, the last 10 years and the last 15 years."

[swedish weave]

True but there have been no splits for either RCL or CCL in over 15 years. The Price to Earnings ratio would be a better descriptor but was trying to avoid "mombo jumbo" statistics, ha, ha... :rolleyes: The P/E is more favorable to RCL also.

 

It is difficult to escape the facts I posted:

"RCL could go belly up this year but it sure was the better investment in 2013. It was also the better investment in the last 5 years, the last 10 years and the last 15 years."

 

I believe you are confused about the original question on this thread.

 

What IS the financial state of CCL and Princess ---- Not what WAS !!!!!

[bluesea321]

CCL is in position to do "in house financing". RCCL is not.

 

A company or corporation that has solid and stable finances can ride through the rough spots in the economy. Those who are mired in debt are more likely to fold up or be bought out in rough times.

 

Another factor that the "experts" don't talk about is the number of companies Carnival has absorbed over the years.

 

The Debt to Equity ratio is not directly related to the ability to do "in house financing". A company can have no debt but if they also have no cash they cannot do "in house financing", they have to borrow money to invest. CCL has $422 million in cash - RCL has $217 million. Since CCL is 2.4 times larger than RCL (by Market Cap) their cash positions are similar (actually slightly in favor of RCL).

 

Your second statement is true however the world is full of companies that were highly leveraged and grew very fast as a result because they offered a good product customers wanted to buy.

 

Your third statement may be one of the reasons CCL is struggling today. Have they absorbed too many companies too fast?

 

As I said earlier, I don’t know where CCL or RCL will be in the years to come. RCl could go belly up while CCL flurishes or maybe it will be the other way around. Past performance is no guaranty of future earnings as they say, but RCL looks like the better of the two at this point in time. You are free to believe otherwise as you wish. :rolleyes:

 

 

I believe you are confused about the original question on this thread.

 

What IS the financial state of CCL and Princess ---- Not what WAS !!!!!

 

I am not confused about this at all. You only quoted the title!!! Here is what the OP asked in her first post:

 

“What is the financial state of Princess and CCL and how does it compare to the rest of the cruise industry? I wonder if any CCL shareholders who have taken the time to evaluate the quarterly reports have an opinion on this. Fuel and food prices have gone up. Is Princess making the same amount of profit as in earlier years?”

 

I took the time to evaluate the reports as she asked and offered my opinions. Best of luck to you in all of your investments. :)

[AE_Collector]

Bluesea321, you have done much more in depth research than I have but what I know is as you say, RCI has increased 4 times what CCL has in the close to 4 years that I have owned equal numbers of shares of each company. More than the requisite 100 shares in order to benefit from owning shares when cruising but not large numbers in excess of the 100 share requirement.

 

In my case I think that being a shareholder does what they want it to in that I consider both their revenue requirements as well as my costs in most things onboard. I bring on our allowable amount of alcohol but don't often exceed that limit at all, certainly not smuggling booze on in rum runners etc.

 

We spend considerable amount of money on shore excursions and we have yet to do an organized excursion that is not through Princess. I suspect we could save a bit of money in exchange for doing more work on our part to research excursions with other companies directly but many say they don't use cruise line excursions for reasons as simple as preferring smaller groups. As a shareholder who receives a generous OBC for being one I can't justify reasons like that as reason enough to cut the cruise line out of a significant source of revenue which ultimately keeps our cruise fares lower overall.

 

I hope that things stay as they are now with the combinability of OBC on Princess but if they head more in the direction of Celebrity I hope they will be creative in the changes that they make. For example, Shareholder Benefit OBC could be made redeemable against Princess Shore Excursions as opposed to being eliminated entirely or being made un-combinable with other OBC.

 

A little off topic I know but the topic IS the profitability of CCL.

 

Terry

Edited June 2, 2014 by AE_Collector

[SHayesShip]

Very enlightening.

 

Here's an interesting comparison of CCL and RCL... Love this site...

 

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=ccl+vs+rcl

[caribill]

The following qrticle should help answer the question about how CCL corp is doing

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20140605/carnival_cruise-ceo-4809dcba0c.html

[Coral]

The following qrticle should help answer the question about how CCL corp is doing

 

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20140605/carnival_cruise-ceo-4809dcba0c.html

 

Great article!

[caribill]

And this article tells how RCCL makes more $$$ http://news.yahoo.com/ceos-mission-luring-reluctant-cruise-takers-153123786.html

[Loonbeam]

Realistically, as long as a company is MAKING money as opposed to losing it, they are doing ok. The details are in how much they are making, what they plan to spend it on, and how to maintain those revenues.