Form 10-Q
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-Q
(Mark One)
|
|
|
þ |
|
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the quarterly period ended January 31, 2011
or
|
|
|
o |
|
TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 |
For the transition period from to
Commission file number 1-9186
TOLL BROTHERS, INC.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
|
|
|
Delaware
|
|
23-2416878 |
(State or other jurisdiction of
|
|
I.R.S. Employer |
incorporation or organization)
|
|
Identification No.) |
|
|
|
250 Gibraltar Road, Horsham, Pennsylvania
|
|
19044 |
(Address of principal executive offices)
|
|
(Zip Code) |
(215) 938-8000
(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
Not applicable
(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed
by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or
for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its
corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted
pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months
(or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes
þ No o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated
filer, a non-accelerated filer or a smaller reporting company. See definition of large accelerated
filer, an accelerated filer and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Check one):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Large accelerated filer þ
|
|
Accelerated filer o
|
|
Non-accelerated filer o
|
|
Smaller reporting company o |
|
|
|
|
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company) |
|
|
Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of
the Exchange Act) Yes o No þ
Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuers classes of common stock, as
of the latest practicable date:
At March 1, 2011, there were approximately 166,838,000 shares of Common Stock, $.01 par value,
outstanding.
TOLL BROTHERS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT ON FORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION
Certain information included in this report or in other materials we have filed or will file with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC) (as well as information included in oral
statements or other written statements made or to be made by us) contains or may contain
forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. You can identify these statements
by the fact that they do not relate to matters of strictly historical or factual nature and
generally discuss or relate to estimates or other expectations regarding future events. They
contain words such as anticipate, estimate, expect, project, intend, plan, believe,
may, can, could, might, should and other words or phrases of similar meaning in
connection with any discussion of future operating or financial performance. Such statements may
include, but are not limited to, information related to: anticipated operating results; home
deliveries; financial resources and condition; changes in revenues; changes in profitability;
changes in margins; changes in accounting treatment; cost of revenues; selling, general and
administrative expenses; interest expense; inventory write-downs; unrecognized tax benefits;
anticipated tax refunds; sales paces; effects of home buyer cancellations; growth and expansion;
joint ventures in which we are involved; anticipated income or benefits to be realized from our
investments in unconsolidated entities; the ability to acquire land and pursue real estate
opportunities; the ability to gain approvals and to open new communities; the ability to sell homes
and properties; the ability to deliver homes from backlog; the ability to secure materials and
subcontractors; the ability to produce the liquidity and capital necessary to expand and take
advantage of opportunities; legal proceedings and claims.
From time to time, forward-looking statements also are included in our Form 10-K and other periodic
reports on Forms 10-Q and 8-K, in press releases, in presentations, on our web site and in other
materials released to the public. Any or all of the forward-looking statements included in this
report and in any other reports or public statements made by us are not guarantees of future
performance and may turn out to be inaccurate. Whether actual results will conform to our
expectations and predictions is subject to a number of risks and uncertainties, including, without
limitation, those mentioned in this report or in other reports, and those included in Item 1A Risk
Factors of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010.
Consequently, actual results may differ materially from those that might be anticipated from our
forward looking statements. Therefore, we caution you not to place undue reliance on our
forward-looking statements. This statement is provided as permitted by the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
When this report uses the words we, us, our, and the Company, they refer to Toll Brothers,
Inc. and its subsidiaries, unless the context otherwise requires. Reference herein to fiscal
2011, and to fiscal 2010, fiscal 2009, and fiscal 2008 refer to our fiscal year ending
October 31, 2011, and our fiscal years ended October 31, 2010, October 31, 2009, and October 31,
2008, respectively.
Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date they are made. We undertake no obligation to
publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future
events or otherwise.
PART I FINANCIAL INFORMATION
|
|
|
ITEM 1. |
|
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS |
TOLL BROTHERS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS
(Amounts in thousands)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 31, |
|
|
October 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(unaudited) |
|
|
|
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
$ |
886,599 |
|
|
$ |
1,039,060 |
|
Marketable securities |
|
|
214,431 |
|
|
|
197,867 |
|
Restricted cash |
|
|
52,408 |
|
|
|
60,906 |
|
Inventory |
|
|
3,360,437 |
|
|
|
3,241,725 |
|
Property, construction and office
equipment, net |
|
|
101,382 |
|
|
|
79,916 |
|
Receivables, prepaid expenses and
other assets |
|
|
89,241 |
|
|
|
97,039 |
|
Mortgage loans receivable |
|
|
40,863 |
|
|
|
93,644 |
|
Customer deposits held in escrow |
|
|
16,694 |
|
|
|
21,366 |
|
Investments in and advances to
unconsolidated entities |
|
|
157,775 |
|
|
|
198,442 |
|
Income tax refund recoverable |
|
|
141,590 |
|
|
|
141,590 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
5,061,420 |
|
|
$ |
5,171,555 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans payable |
|
$ |
104,389 |
|
|
$ |
94,491 |
|
Senior notes |
|
|
1,544,588 |
|
|
|
1,544,110 |
|
Mortgage company warehouse loan |
|
|
19,410 |
|
|
|
72,367 |
|
Customer deposits |
|
|
74,761 |
|
|
|
77,156 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
83,612 |
|
|
|
91,738 |
|
Accrued expenses |
|
|
522,033 |
|
|
|
570,321 |
|
Income taxes payable |
|
|
142,210 |
|
|
|
162,359 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
2,491,003 |
|
|
|
2,612,542 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preferred stock, none issued |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock, 166,821 and 166,413 shares issued
at January 31, 2011 and October 31, 2010, respectively |
|
|
1,668 |
|
|
|
1,664 |
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
|
367,792 |
|
|
|
360,006 |
|
Retained earnings |
|
|
2,197,873 |
|
|
|
2,194,456 |
|
Treasury stock, at cost 7 and 5 shares
at January 31, 2011 and October 31, 2010, respectively |
|
|
(131 |
) |
|
|
(96 |
) |
Accumulated other comprehensive loss |
|
|
(340 |
) |
|
|
(577 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity |
|
|
2,566,862 |
|
|
|
2,555,453 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
3,555 |
|
|
|
3,560 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
2,570,417 |
|
|
|
2,559,013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
5,061,420 |
|
|
$ |
5,171,555 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes
2
TOLL BROTHERS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Amounts in thousands, except per share data)
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
January 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Revenues |
|
$ |
334,116 |
|
|
$ |
326,698 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of revenues |
|
|
281,965 |
|
|
|
317,487 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
61,251 |
|
|
|
67,273 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
1,112 |
|
|
|
7,257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
344,328 |
|
|
|
392,017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from operations |
|
|
(10,212 |
) |
|
|
(65,319 |
) |
Other: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) income from unconsolidated entities |
|
|
(11,002 |
) |
|
|
366 |
|
Interest and other |
|
|
4,167 |
|
|
|
8,233 |
|
Expenses related to early retirement of debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(34 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income tax benefit |
|
|
(17,047 |
) |
|
|
(56,754 |
) |
Income tax benefit |
|
|
(20,464 |
) |
|
|
(16,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
3,417 |
|
|
$ |
(40,754 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income (loss) per share: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
$ |
0.02 |
|
|
$ |
(0.25 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted |
|
$ |
0.02 |
|
|
$ |
(0.25 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of shares: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Basic |
|
|
166,677 |
|
|
|
165,237 |
|
Diluted |
|
|
168,121 |
|
|
|
165,237 |
|
See accompanying notes
3
TOLL BROTHERS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Amounts in thousands)
(Unaudited)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended January 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Cash flow used in operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
$ |
3,417 |
|
|
$ |
(40,754 |
) |
Adjustments
to reconcile net income (loss) to net
cash (used in) provided by operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
4,387 |
|
|
|
4,486 |
|
Stock-based compensation |
|
|
5,373 |
|
|
|
4,944 |
|
Excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,694 |
) |
Impairments of investments in unconsolidated entities |
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
Income from unconsolidated entities |
|
|
(8,998 |
) |
|
|
(366 |
) |
Distributions of earnings from unconsolidated entities |
|
|
2,793 |
|
|
|
|
|
Deferred tax benefit |
|
|
(6,589 |
) |
|
|
(14,840 |
) |
Deferred tax valuation allowances |
|
|
6,589 |
|
|
|
14,840 |
|
Inventory impairments |
|
|
5,126 |
|
|
|
33,381 |
|
Change in fair value of mortgage loans receivable and
derivative instruments |
|
|
714 |
|
|
|
|
|
Expenses related to early retirement of debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
34 |
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Increase in inventory |
|
|
(120,875 |
) |
|
|
(52,262 |
) |
Origination of mortgage loans |
|
|
(182,659 |
) |
|
|
(123,682 |
) |
Sale of mortgage loans |
|
|
233,891 |
|
|
|
135,359 |
|
Decrease in restricted cash |
|
|
8,498 |
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease in receivables, prepaid
expenses and other assets |
|
|
7,937 |
|
|
|
3,452 |
|
Increase (decrease) in customer deposits |
|
|
2,277 |
|
|
|
(3,766 |
) |
Decrease in accounts payable and accrued expenses |
|
|
(38,987 |
) |
|
|
(14,409 |
) |
Increase in income tax refund recoverable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20,437 |
) |
(Decrease) increase in income taxes payable |
|
|
(20,082 |
) |
|
|
4,256 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in operating activities |
|
|
(77,188 |
) |
|
|
(72,458 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flow used in investing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of property and equipment net |
|
|
(4,281 |
) |
|
|
(276 |
) |
Purchase of marketable securities |
|
|
(119,238 |
) |
|
|
(85,450 |
) |
Sale and redemption of marketable securities |
|
|
102,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
Investment in and advances to unconsolidated entities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,952 |
) |
Return of investments in unconsolidated entities |
|
|
6,305 |
|
|
|
700 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
|
(14,714 |
) |
|
|
(89,978 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flow used in financing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from loans payable |
|
|
266,035 |
|
|
|
178,437 |
|
Principal payments of loans payable |
|
|
(329,754 |
) |
|
|
(213,273 |
) |
Redemption of senior subordinated notes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(47,872 |
) |
Proceeds from stock-based benefit plans |
|
|
3,323 |
|
|
|
2,844 |
|
Excess tax benefits from stock-based compensation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,694 |
|
Purchase of treasury stock |
|
|
(163 |
) |
|
|
(142 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in financing activities |
|
|
(60,559 |
) |
|
|
(77,312 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
(152,461 |
) |
|
|
(239,748 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year |
|
|
1,039,060 |
|
|
|
1,807,718 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year |
|
$ |
886,599 |
|
|
$ |
1,567,970 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See accompanying notes
4
TOLL BROTHERS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
1. Significant Accounting Policies
Basis of Presentation
The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Toll Brothers, Inc. (the
Company), a Delaware corporation, and its majority-owned subsidiaries. All significant
intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated. Investments in 50% or less owned
partnerships and affiliates are accounted for using the equity method unless it is determined that
the Company has effective control of the entity, in which case the entity would be consolidated.
The accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in
accordance with the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for
interim financial information. The October 31, 2010 balance sheet amounts and disclosures included
herein have been derived from the Companys October 31, 2010 audited financial statements. Since
the accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements do not include all the information and
footnotes required by U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for complete financial
statements, the Company suggests that they be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial
statements and notes thereto included in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
October 31, 2010. In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated
financial statements include all adjustments, which are of a normal recurring nature, necessary to
present fairly the Companys financial position as of January 31, 2011, the results of its
operations for the three-month periods ended January 31, 2011 and 2010, and its cash flows for the
three-month periods ended January 31, 2011 and 2010. The results of operations for such interim
periods are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full year.
Inventory
Inventory is stated at cost unless an impairment exists, in which case it is written down to fair
value in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 360, Property, Plant and
Equipment (ASC 360). In addition to direct land acquisition costs, land development costs and
home construction costs, costs also include interest, real estate taxes and direct overhead related
to development and construction, which are capitalized to inventory during the period beginning
with the commencement of development and ending with the completion of construction. For those
communities that have been temporarily closed, no additional capitalized interest is allocated to a
communitys inventory until it re-opens. While the community remains closed, carrying costs such as
real estate taxes are expensed as incurred.
The Company capitalizes certain interest costs to qualified inventory during the development and
construction period of its communities in accordance with ASC 835-20, Capitalization of Interest
(ASC 835-20). Capitalized interest is charged to cost of revenues when the related inventory is
delivered. Interest incurred on homebuilding indebtedness in excess of qualified inventory, as
defined in ASC 835-20, is charged to the statement of operations in the period incurred.
Once a parcel of land has been approved for development and the Company opens one of its typical
communities, it may take four to five years to fully develop, sell and deliver all the homes in
such community. Longer or shorter time periods are possible depending on the number of home sites
in a community and the sales and delivery pace of the homes in a community. The Companys master
planned communities, consisting of several smaller communities, may take up to ten years or more to
complete. Because the Companys inventory is considered a long-lived asset under GAAP, the Company
is required, under ASC 360, to regularly review the carrying value of each community and write down
the value of those communities for which it believes the values have been impaired.
Current Communities: When the profitability of a current community deteriorates, the sales pace
declines
significantly or some other factor indicates a possible impairment in the recoverability of the
asset, the asset is reviewed for impairment by comparing the estimated future undiscounted cash
flow for the community to its carrying value. If the estimated future undiscounted cash flow is
less than the communitys carrying value, the
carrying value is written down to its estimated fair value. Estimated fair value is primarily
determined by discounting the estimated future cash flow of each community. The impairment is
charged to cost of revenues in the period in which the impairment is determined. In estimating the
future undiscounted cash flow of a community, the Company uses various estimates such as: (a) the
expected sales pace in a community, based upon general economic conditions that will have a
short-
5
term or
long-term impact on the market in which the community is located and on competition within the market, including the number of home sites available and pricing and
incentives being offered in other communities owned by the Company or by other builders; (b) the
expected sales prices and sales incentives to be offered in a community; (c) costs expended to date
and expected to be incurred in the future, including, but not limited to, land and land development
costs, home construction costs, interest costs and overhead costs; (d) alternative product
offerings that may be offered in a community that will have an impact on sales pace, sales price,
building cost or the number of homes that can be built on a particular site; and (e) alternative
uses for the property such as the possibility of a sale of the entire community to another builder
or the sale of individual home sites.
Future Communities: The Company evaluates all land held for future communities or future sections
of current communities, whether owned or under contract, to determine whether or not it expects to
proceed with the development of the land as originally contemplated. This evaluation encompasses
the same types of estimates used for current communities described above, as well as an evaluation
of the regulatory environment in which the land is located and the estimated probability of
obtaining the necessary approvals, the estimated time and cost it will take to obtain the approvals
and the possible concessions that will be required to be given in order to obtain them.
Concessions may include cash payments to fund improvements to public places such as parks and
streets, dedication of a portion of the property for use by the public or as open space or a
reduction in the density or size of the homes to be built. Based upon this review, the Company
decides (a) as to land under contract to be purchased, whether the contract will likely be
terminated or renegotiated, and (b) as to land owned, whether the land will likely be developed as
contemplated or in an alternative manner, or should be sold. The Company then further determines
whether costs that have been capitalized to the community are recoverable or should be written off.
The write-off is charged to cost of revenues in the period in which the need for the write-off is
determined.
The estimates used in the determination of the estimated cash flows and fair value of both current
and future communities are based on factors known to the Company at the time such estimates are
made and its expectations of future operations and economic conditions. Should the estimates or
expectations used in determining estimated fair value deteriorate in the future, the Company may be
required to recognize additional impairment charges and write-offs related to current and future
communities.
Variable Interest Entities:
The Company has a significant number of land purchase contracts and
several investments in unconsolidated entities which it evaluates in accordance with ASC 810,
Consolidation
(ASC 810). The Company analyzes its land purchase contracts and the unconsolidated
entities in
which it has an investment to determine whether the land sellers and unconsolidated entities are
variable interest entities (VIEs) and, if so, whether the Company is the primary
beneficiary. If
the Company is determined to be the primary beneficiary of the VIE,
it must consolidate the VIE. A VIE
is an entity with insufficient equity investment or in which the equity investors lack some of the
characteristics of a controlling financial interest. In determining whether it is the primary
beneficiary, the Company considers, among other things, whether it has the power to direct the
activities of the VIE that most significantly impact the entitys economic performance, including,
but not limited to, determining or limiting the scope or purpose of the VIE, selling or
transferring property owned or controlled by the VIE, or arranging financing for the VIE. The
Company also considers whether it has the obligation to absorb losses of the VIE or the right to
receive benefits from the VIE.
Fair Value Disclosures
The Company uses ASC 820, Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures (ASC 820), to measure the
fair value of certain assets and liabilities. ASC 820 provides a framework for measuring fair
value in accordance with GAAP, establishes a fair value hierarchy which requires an entity to
maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs when measuring
fair value and requires certain disclosures about fair value measurements.
In January 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued ASU No. 2010-6,
Improving Disclosure about Fair Value Measurements, (ASU 2010-6), which amends ASC 820 to
increase disclosure requirements regarding recurring and non-recurring fair value measurements. The
Company adopted ASU 2010-6 as of February 1, 2010, except for the disclosures about Level 3 fair
value disclosures which will be effective for the Company on November 1, 2011. The adoption of ASU
2010-6 did not have a material impact on the Companys consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows.
6
The fair value hierarchy is summarized below:
|
Level 1: |
|
Fair value determined based on quoted prices in active markets for
identical assets or liabilities. |
|
Level 2: |
|
Fair value determined using significant observable inputs, generally either
quoted prices in active markets for similar assets or liabilities or quoted prices in
markets that are not active. |
|
Level 3: |
|
Fair value determined using significant unobservable inputs, such as
pricing models, discounted cash flows, or similar techniques. |
Recent Accounting Pronouncements
In June 2009, the FASB revised its authoritative guidance in ASC 860, Transfers and Servicing
(ASC 860). The amendment eliminated the concept of a qualifying special-purpose entity, created
more stringent conditions for reporting a transfer of a portion of a financial asset as a sale,
clarified other sale-accounting criteria, and changed the initial measurement of a transferors
interest in transferred financial assets. The amendment was adopted by the Company for its fiscal
year beginning November 1, 2010. The adoption has not had a material impact on the Companys
consolidated financial position, results of operations and cash flows.
In June 2009, the FASB revised its authoritative guidance for determining the primary beneficiary
of a VIE. In December 2009, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2009-17, Improvements
to Financial Reporting by Enterprises Involved with Variable Interest Entities (ASU 2009-17),
which provides amendments to ASC 810 to reflect the revised guidance for consolidation purposes.
The amendments to ASC 810 replace the quantitative-based risk and rewards calculation for
determining which reporting entity, if any, has a controlling interest in a VIE with an approach
focused on identifying which reporting entity has the power to direct the activities of a VIE that
most significantly impact the entitys economic performance and has either the obligation to absorb
losses of the entity or the right to receive benefits from the entity. The Company adopted the
amended provisions for its fiscal year beginning November 1, 2010. The adoption of the amended
provisions of ASC 810 has not had a material effect on the Companys consolidated financial
position or results of operations.
Reclassification
In order to provide attractive mortgage financing to its home buyers, the Companys homebuilding
operations subsidize the Companys mortgage subsidiary. In the quarter ending January 31, 2011, the
Company determined that the amount of subsidies in fiscal 2010 were in excess of the mortgage
companys costs and have reclassified the excess from interest and other income to cost of
revenues. The table below provides information for each fiscal quarter of fiscal 2010 ($ amounts in
thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of revenues |
|
|
Interest and other income |
|
|
|
As reported |
|
|
Reclassified |
|
|
|
|
|
|
As reported |
|
|
Reclassified |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ change |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ change |
|
Three months ended: |
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
(decrease) |
|
|
$ |
|
|
$ |
|
|
(decrease) |
|
January 31 |
|
|
317,768 |
|
|
|
317,487 |
|
|
|
(281 |
) |
|
|
8,514 |
|
|
|
8,233 |
|
|
|
(281 |
) |
April 30 |
|
|
305,739 |
|
|
|
305,583 |
|
|
|
(156 |
) |
|
|
7,155 |
|
|
|
6,999 |
|
|
|
(156 |
) |
July 31 |
|
|
392,416 |
|
|
|
389,505 |
|
|
|
(2,911 |
) |
|
|
8,813 |
|
|
|
5,902 |
|
|
|
(2,911 |
) |
October 31 |
|
|
367,152 |
|
|
|
363,983 |
|
|
|
(3,169 |
) |
|
|
10,348 |
|
|
|
7,179 |
|
|
|
(3,169 |
) |
The above reclassifications of cost of revenues resulted in a decrease in the Companys Loss
from operations.
Certain other prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the fiscal 2011
presentation.
7
2. Inventory
Inventory at January 31, 2011 and October 31, 2010 consisted of the following (amounts in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 31, |
|
|
October 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Land controlled for future communities |
|
$ |
47,634 |
|
|
$ |
31,899 |
|
Land owned for future communities |
|
|
990,740 |
|
|
|
923,972 |
|
Operating communities |
|
|
2,322,063 |
|
|
|
2,285,854 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
3,360,437 |
|
|
$ |
3,241,725 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating communities include communities offering homes for sale, communities that have sold all
available home sites but have not completed delivery of the homes, communities that were previously
offering homes for sale but are temporarily closed due to business conditions or non-availability
of improved home sites and that are expected to reopen within twelve months of the end of the
fiscal year being reported on, and communities preparing to open for sale. Communities that were
previously offering homes for sale but are temporarily closed due to business conditions that do
not have any remaining backlog and are not expected to reopen within twelve months of the end of
the fiscal period being reported on have been classified as land owned for future communities. The
carrying value attributable to operating communities includes the cost of homes under construction,
land and land development costs, the carrying cost of home sites in current and future phases of
these communities and the carrying cost of model homes, less impairment charges recognized against
the communities.
Information regarding the classification, number and carrying value of these temporarily closed
communities at January 31, 2011 and October 31, 2010 is provided in the table below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 31, |
|
|
October 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Land owned for future communities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of communities |
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
36 |
|
Carrying value (in thousands) |
|
$ |
174,989 |
|
|
$ |
212,882 |
|
Operating communities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of communities |
|
|
15 |
|
|
|
13 |
|
Carrying value (in thousands) |
|
$ |
117,134 |
|
|
$ |
78,100 |
|
During the three-month period ended January 31, 2011, the Company reclassified $20.0 million of
inventory related to commercial retail space located in one of its high-rise projects to property,
construction and office equipment. The $20.0 million was reclassified due to the completion of
construction of the facilities and the substantial completion of the high-rise project of which the
facilities are a part.
The Company provided for inventory impairment charges and the expensing of costs that it believed
not to be recoverable in the three-month periods ended January 31, 2011 and 2010 as shown in the
table below (amounts in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charge (recovery) |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Land controlled for future communities |
|
$ |
(349 |
) |
|
$ |
1,631 |
|
Land owned for future communities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9,000 |
|
Operating communities |
|
|
5,475 |
|
|
|
22,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
5,126 |
|
|
$ |
33,381 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The recovery in the three-month period ended January 31, 2011 represents reversal of certain
previously accrued costs.
The Company reviews the profitability of each of its operating communities during each fiscal
quarter. For those communities operating below certain profitability thresholds, or where other
negative factors, such as a decline in market or economic conditions in the market in which the
community is located, high cancellation rates or a significant increase in speculative inventory in
the community or in the market in general, exist, and the undiscounted cash flow is less than the
carrying value, the Company determines the estimated fair value of those communities and adjusts
the carrying value of the communities to their estimated fair values in accordance with ASC 360.
8
The table below provides, for the periods indicated, the number of operating communities that the
Company tested for potential impairment, the number of operating communities for which the Company
recognized impairment
charges and the amount of impairment charges recognized, and, as of the end of the period
indicated, the fair value of those communities, net of impairment charges ($ amounts in millions).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impaired operating communities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
communities, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
operating |
|
|
|
|
|
|
net of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
communities |
|
|
Number of |
|
|
impairment |
|
|
Impairment |
|
Three months ended: |
|
tested |
|
|
communities |
|
|
charges |
|
|
charges |
|
Fiscal 2011: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 31 |
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
$ |
56.1 |
|
|
$ |
5.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2010: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 31 |
|
|
260 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
$ |
60.5 |
|
|
$ |
22.8 |
|
April 30 |
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
$ |
53.6 |
|
|
|
15.0 |
|
July 31 |
|
|
155 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
$ |
21.5 |
|
|
|
6.6 |
|
October 31 |
|
|
144 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
$ |
39.2 |
|
|
|
9.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
53.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At January 31, 2011, the Company evaluated its land purchase contracts to determine if any of the
selling entities were VIEs and, if they were, whether the Company was the primary beneficiary of
any of them. Under these land purchase contracts, the Company does not possess legal title to the
land and its risk is generally limited to deposits paid to the sellers and the creditors of the
sellers generally have no recourse against the Company. At January 31, 2011, the Company determined
that 35 land purchase contracts, with an aggregate purchase price of $303.8 million, on which it
had made aggregate deposits totaling $12.9 million, were VIEs, and that it was not the primary
beneficiary of any VIE related to its land purchase contracts.
The Company capitalizes certain interest costs to qualified inventory during the communities
development and construction periods in accordance with ASC 835-20. Capitalized interest is charged
to cost of revenues when the related inventory is delivered. Interest incurred on homebuilding
indebtedness in excess of qualified inventory, as defined in ASC 835-20, is charged directly to the
statements of operations in the period incurred.
Interest incurred, capitalized and expensed for the three-month periods ended January 31, 2011 and
2010 was as follows (amounts in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Interest capitalized, beginning of period |
|
$ |
267,278 |
|
|
$ |
259,818 |
|
Interest incurred |
|
|
29,716 |
|
|
|
29,689 |
|
Interest expensed to cost of revenues |
|
|
(18,082 |
) |
|
|
(17,253 |
) |
Interest directly expensed to
statement of operations |
|
|
(1,112 |
) |
|
|
(7,257 |
) |
Write-off against other income |
|
|
(70 |
) |
|
|
(104 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest capitalized, end of period |
|
$ |
277,730 |
|
|
$ |
264,893 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inventory impairment charges are recognized against all inventory costs of a community, such as
land, land improvements, cost of home construction and capitalized interest. The amounts included
in the table directly above reflect the gross amount of capitalized interest without allocation of
any impairment charges recognized. The Company estimates that, had inventory impairment charges
been allocated on a pro rata basis to the individual components of inventory, capitalized interest
at January 31, 2011 and 2010 would have been reduced by approximately $53.8 million and $58.7
million, respectively.
9
3. Investments in and Advances to Unconsolidated Entities
Development Joint Ventures
The Company has investments in, and advances to, a number of joint ventures with unrelated parties
to develop land (Development Joint Ventures). Some of these Development Joint Ventures develop
land for the sole use of the venture participants, including the Company, and others develop land
for sale to the joint venture participants and to unrelated builders. The Company recognizes its
share of earnings from the sale of home sites by Development Joint Ventures to other builders. With
regard to home sites the Company purchases from the Development Joint Ventures, the Company reduces
its cost basis in those home sites by its share of the earnings on the home sites. At January 31,
2011, the Company had approximately $18.7 million, net of impairment charges, invested in or
advanced to Development Joint Ventures. In addition, the Company has a funding commitment of $3.5
million to one Development Joint Venture, should an additional investment in that venture be
required.
As of January 31, 2011, the Company had recognized cumulative impairment charges in connection with
its current Development Joint Ventures of $144.2 million. These impairment charges are
attributable to investments in certain Development Joint Ventures where the Company determined
there was a loss in value in the investment that was other than temporary. The Company recognized
an impairment charge in connection with its Development Joint Ventures of $20.0 million in the
three-month period ended January 31, 2011. The Company did not recognize any impairment charges in
connection with the Development Joint Ventures in the three-month period ended January 31, 2010.
At January 31, 2011, the Development Joint Ventures had aggregate loan commitments of $763.2
million and had approximately $763.2 million borrowed against these commitments, including amounts
related to litigation discussed below. These loans are non-recourse to the Company; however, with
respect to loans obtained by some of the Development Joint Ventures, the Company executed
completion guarantees and conditional repayment guarantees. The obligations under such completion
guarantees and conditional repayment guarantees are several and not joint, and are limited to the
Companys pro-rata share of the loan obligations of each such Development Joint Venture.
In October 2008, the lending
syndicate for one of the Development Joint Ventures completed a
foreclosure on the land owned by that Development Joint Venture and filed a lawsuit against its
members, including the parent companies of the members, seeking to recover damages under the
completion guarantees. As noted above, each of the completion guarantees delivered by the members
of that Development Joint Venture is several and not joint; therefore, the liability of the Company
is limited to the Companys pro-rata share of damages, if any, awarded under such completion
guarantees. In March 2011, the parties to this litigation executed a
settlement agreement.
In December 2008, the lending syndicate for another Development Joint Venture filed separate
lawsuits against the members of the Development Joint Venture and their parent companies, seeking
to recover damages under the completion guarantees and damages allegedly caused by the ventures
failure to repay the lenders. In December 2010, three of the lenders in this syndicate filed an
involuntary bankruptcy petition against this joint venture entity. In February 2011, the bankruptcy
court entered an order for relief and ordered the appointment of a bankruptcy trustee; the joint
venture is appealing the bankruptcy courts order.
As of
January 31, 2011, the Company estimates the maximum gross potential
liability under the joint ventures described above, net of amounts
that the Company has accrued, is approximately $38.4 million, a
portion of which would be allocated to the carrying value of the land
acquired.
The Company does not believe that the expected resolution of the above matters related to the
Development Joint Ventures will have a material impact on the Companys results of operations, cash
flows and financial condition.
10
Planned Community Joint Ventures
The Company is a participant in a joint venture with an unrelated party to develop a single master
planned community (the Planned Community Joint Venture). At January 31, 2011, the Company had an
investment of $51.4 million in this Planned Community Joint Venture. At January 31, 2011, each
participant had agreed to contribute additional funds up to $8.3 million if required. If a
participant fails to make a required capital contribution, the other participant may make the
additional contribution and diminish the non-contributing participants ownership interest. At
January 31, 2011, this joint venture did not have any indebtedness.
Condominium Joint Ventures
At January 31, 2011, the Company had an aggregate of $45.9 million of investments in four joint
ventures with unrelated parties to develop luxury condominium projects, including for-sale
residential units and commercial space (Condominium Joint Ventures). At January 31, 2011, the
Condominium Joint Ventures had aggregate loan commitments of $133.9 million, against which
approximately $127.0 million had been borrowed.
As of January 31, 2011, the Company had recognized cumulative impairment charges against its
investments in the Condominium Joint Ventures and its pro-rata share of impairment charges
recognized by these Condominium Joint Ventures in the amount of $31.2 million. The Company did not
recognize any impairment charges in connection with its Condominium Joint Ventures in three-month
periods ended January 31, 2011 and 2010. At January 31, 2011, the Company did not have any
commitments to make contributions to any Condominium Joint Venture.
Structured Asset Joint Venture
In July 2010, the Company invested $29.1 million in a joint venture in which it is a 20%
participant with two unrelated parties to purchase a 40% interest in an entity that owns and
controls a portfolio of loans and real estate (Structured Asset Joint Venture). At January 31,
2011, the Company had an investment of $29.9 million in this Structured Asset Joint Venture. At
January 31, 2011, the Company did not have any commitments to make additional contributions to the
joint venture and has not guaranteed any of the joint ventures liabilities. If the joint venture
needs additional capital and a participant fails to make a requested capital contribution, the
other participant may make a contribution in consideration for a preferred return or may make the
additional capital contribution and diminish the non-contributing participants ownership interest.
Toll Brothers Realty Trust and Trust II
In fiscal 2005, the Company, together with the Pennsylvania State Employees Retirement System
(PASERS), formed Toll Brothers Realty Trust II (Trust II) to be in a position to take advantage
of commercial real estate opportunities. Trust II is owned 50% by the Company and 50% by an
affiliate of PASERS. At January 31, 2011, the Company had an investment of $11.7 million in Trust
II. Prior to the formation of Trust II, the Company formed Toll Brothers Realty Trust (the Trust)
in 1998 to take advantage of commercial real estate opportunities. The Trust is effectively owned
one-third by the Company; one-third by Robert I. Toll, Bruce E. Toll (and members of his family),
Zvi Barzilay (and members of his family), Douglas C. Yearley, Jr. and former members of the
Companys senior management; and one-third by an affiliate of the Pennsylvania State Employees
Retirement System (collectively, the Shareholders). As of January 31, 2011, the Company had a net
investment in the Trust of $171,000. The Company provides development, finance and management
services to the Trust and recognized fees under the terms of various agreements in the amounts of
$0.5 million in each of the three-month periods ended January 31, 2011 and 2010. The Company
believes that the transactions between itself and the Trust were on terms no less favorable than it
would have agreed to with unrelated parties.
General
At January 31, 2011, the Company had accrued $68.1 million of its aggregate exposure with respect
to the Development Joint Ventures, the Planned Community Joint Venture, the Condominium Joint
Ventures and the Structured Asset Joint Venture. The Companys investments in these entities are
accounted for using the equity method. The Company recognized $20.0 million of impairment charges
related to its investments in and advances to unconsolidated entities in the three-month period
ended January 31, 2011. The Company did not recognize any impairment charges related to its
investments in and advances to unconsolidated entities in the fiscal 2010 period. Impairment
charges related to these entities are included in (Loss) income from unconsolidated entities in
the Companys Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.
11
4. Accrued Expenses
Accrued expenses at January 31, 2011 and October 31, 2010 consisted of the following (amounts in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 31, |
|
|
October 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Land, land development and construction |
|
$ |
101,297 |
|
|
$ |
110,301 |
|
Compensation and employee benefits |
|
|
80,443 |
|
|
|
95,107 |
|
Insurance and litigation |
|
|
140,267 |
|
|
|
143,421 |
|
Commitments to unconsolidated entities |
|
|
68,114 |
|
|
|
88,121 |
|
Warranty |
|
|
45,928 |
|
|
|
45,835 |
|
Interest |
|
|
31,550 |
|
|
|
26,998 |
|
Other |
|
|
54,434 |
|
|
|
60,538 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
522,033 |
|
|
$ |
570,321 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company accrues for expected warranty costs at the time each home is closed and title and
possession are transferred to the home buyer. Costs are accrued based upon historical experience.
Changes in the warranty accrual for three-month periods ended
January 31, 2011 and 2010 were as
follows (amounts in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Balance, beginning of period |
|
$ |
45,835 |
|
|
$ |
53,937 |
|
Additions homes closed during the period |
|
|
1,929 |
|
|
|
2,076 |
|
(Decrease) increase in accruals for homes closed in prior periods |
|
|
(66 |
) |
|
|
453 |
|
Charges incurred |
|
|
(1,770 |
) |
|
|
(3,107 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, end of period |
|
$ |
45,928 |
|
|
$ |
53,359 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Employee Retirement Plans
The Company has two unfunded supplemental retirement plans for certain employees. For the
three-month periods ended January 31, 2011 and 2010, the Company recognized costs and made payments
related to its supplemental retirement plans as follows (amounts in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Service cost |
|
$ |
76 |
|
|
$ |
61 |
|
Interest cost |
|
|
323 |
|
|
|
347 |
|
Amortization of prior service obligation |
|
|
173 |
|
|
|
307 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total costs |
|
$ |
572 |
|
|
$ |
715 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benefits paid |
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
$ |
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Income Taxes
A reconciliation of the Companys effective tax rate from the federal statutory tax rate for the
three months ended January 31, 2011 and 2010 is set forth in the table below (amounts in
thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
%* |
|
|
$ |
|
|
%* |
|
Federal tax (benefit) provision at statutory rate |
|
|
(5,966 |
) |
|
|
(35.0 |
) |
|
|
(19,864 |
) |
|
|
(35.0 |
) |
State taxes, net of federal benefit |
|
|
(554 |
) |
|
|
(3.3 |
) |
|
|
(1,844 |
) |
|
|
(3.3 |
) |
Reversal of state tax provisions finalization of audits |
|
|
(2,340 |
) |
|
|
(13.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reversal of accrual for uncertain tax positions |
|
|
(17,954 |
) |
|
|
(105.3 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Valuation allowance recognized |
|
|
7,027 |
|
|
|
41.2 |
|
|
|
14,840 |
|
|
|
26.1 |
|
Valuation allowance reversed |
|
|
(1,260 |
) |
|
|
(7.4 |
) |
|
|
(11,407 |
) |
|
|
(20.1 |
) |
Accrued interest on anticipated tax assessments |
|
|
813 |
|
|
|
4.8 |
|
|
|
2,438 |
|
|
|
4.3 |
|
Other |
|
|
(230 |
) |
|
|
(1.3 |
) |
|
|
(163 |
) |
|
|
(0.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax provision (benefit) |
|
|
(20,464 |
) |
|
|
(120.0 |
) |
|
|
(16,000 |
) |
|
|
(28.2 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Due to rounding, amounts may not add. |
12
The Company currently operates in 19 states and is subject to taxation in various state
jurisdictions. The Company estimates its state tax liability based upon the individual taxing
authorities regulations, estimates of income by taxing jurisdiction and the Companys ability to
utilize certain tax-saving strategies. Based on the Companys estimate of the allocation of income
or loss, as the case may be, among the various taxing jurisdictions and changes in tax regulations
and their impact on the Companys tax strategies, the Companys estimated rate for state income
taxes was 5.0% for fiscal 2011 and 2010.
A reconciliation of the change in the unrecognized tax benefits for the three months ended January
31, 2011 and 2010 is set forth in the table below (amounts in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Balance, November 1, |
|
$ |
160,446 |
|
|
$ |
171,366 |
|
Increase in benefit as a result of tax
positions taken in prior years |
|
|
1,250 |
|
|
|
2,750 |
|
Increase in benefit as a result of tax
positions taken in current year |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,000 |
|
Decrease in benefit as a result of resolution
of uncertain tax positions |
|
|
(17,954 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Decrease in benefit as a result of
completion of tax audits |
|
|
(3,600 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Balance, January 31, |
|
$ |
140,142 |
|
|
$ |
175,116 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Companys unrecognized tax benefits are included in Income taxes payable on the Companys
Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. If these unrecognized tax benefits reverse in the future,
they would have a beneficial impact on the Companys effective tax rate at that time. During the
next twelve months, it is reasonably possible that the amount of unrecognized tax benefits will
change. The anticipated changes will be principally due to expiration of tax statutes, settlements
with taxing jurisdictions, increases due to new tax positions taken and the accrual of estimated
interest and penalties.
The Company recognizes in its tax benefit, potential interest and penalties. Information as to the
amounts recognized in its tax benefit, before reduction for applicable taxes and reversal of
previously accrued interest and penalties, potential interest and penalties in the three-month
period ended January 31, 2011 and 2010, and the amounts accrued for potential interest and
penalties at January 31, 2011 and October 31, 2010 is set forth in the table below (amounts in
thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
Recognized in statements of operations: |
|
|
|
|
Three-month period ended January 31, 2011 |
|
$ |
1,250 |
|
Three-month period ended January 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
2,750 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Accrued at: |
|
|
|
|
January 31, 2011 |
|
$ |
25,750 |
|
October 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
39,209 |
|
The Company is allowed to carry forward tax losses for 20 years and apply such tax losses to future
taxable income to realize federal deferred tax assets. As of January 31, 2011, the Company had
approximately $10.0 million of tax loss carryforwards, resulting from losses that it recognized on
its fiscal 2009 tax return, in excess of the amount it could carry back against its fiscal 2007
federal taxable income. In addition, the Company will be able to reverse its previously recognized
valuation allowances during any future period for which it reports book income before income taxes.
The Company will continue to review its deferred tax assets in accordance with ASC 740 Income
Taxes.
On November 6, 2009, the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009 (the Act) was
enacted into law. The Act amended Section 172 of the Internal Revenue Code to allow net operating
losses realized in a tax year ending after December 31, 2007 and beginning before January 1, 2010
to be carried back for up to five years (such losses were previously limited to a two-year
carryback). This change will allow the Company to carry back its fiscal 2010 taxable losses to
prior years and will allow the Company to file for a refund of previously paid federal income
taxes. The Company expects to receive a tax refund in fiscal 2011 of approximately $141.6 million.
This expected refund is reflected in the Companys Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at January
31, 2011 and October 31, 2010.
13
At January 31, 2011 and October 31, 2010, the Company had recorded valuation allowances against its
entire net deferred federal tax asset of $369.9 million and $364.2 million, respectively.
For state tax purposes, due to past and projected losses in certain jurisdictions where the Company
does not have carryback potential and/or cannot sufficiently forecast future taxable income, the
Company has recognized net cumulative valuation allowances against its state deferred tax assets of
$45.0 million as of January 31, 2011 and October 31, 2010. Future valuation
allowances in these jurisdictions may continue to be recognized if the Company believes it will not
generate sufficient future taxable income to utilize any future state deferred tax assets.
7. Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss and Total Comprehensive Loss
Accumulated other comprehensive loss at January 31, 2011 and October 31, 2010 was primarily related
to employee retirement plans.
The components of other comprehensive income (loss) in three-month periods ended January 31, 2011
and 2010 were as follows (amounts in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Net income (loss) income as reported |
|
$ |
3,417 |
|
|
$ |
(40,754 |
) |
Changes in pension liability, net of tax provision |
|
|
173 |
|
|
|
(466 |
) |
Change in fair value of available-for-sale securities |
|
|
64 |
|
|
|
141 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Comprehensive income (loss) |
|
$ |
3,654 |
|
|
$ |
(41,079 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tax benefit recognized in total
comprehensive loss |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
123 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. Stock-Based Benefit Plans
Stock Options:
The fair value of each option award is estimated on the date of grant using a lattice-based option
valuation model that uses assumptions noted in the following table. The lattice-based option
valuation model incorporates ranges of assumptions for inputs, which are disclosed in the table
below. Expected volatilities were based on implied volatilities from traded options on the
Companys stock, historical volatility of the Companys stock and other factors. The expected lives
of options granted were derived from the historical exercise patterns and anticipated future
patterns and represent the period of time that options granted are expected to be outstanding; the
range given below results from certain groups of employees exhibiting different behaviors. The
risk-free rate for periods within the contractual life of the option is based on the U.S. Treasury
yield curve in effect at the time of grant.
The weighted-average assumptions and the fair value used for stock option grants for three-month
periods ended January 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
2010 |
Expected volatility |
|
45.38% 49.46% |
|
46.74% 51.41% |
Weighted-average volatility |
|
47.73% |
|
49.51% |
Risk-free interest rate |
|
1.64% 3.09% |
|
2.15% 3.47% |
Expected life (years) |
|
4.29 8.75 |
|
4.44 8.69 |
Dividends |
|
none |
|
none |
Weighted-average grant date fair value
per share of options granted |
|
$7.94 |
|
$7.63 |
14
Stock compensation expense and related income tax benefits recognized for the three-month periods
ended January 31, 2011 and 2010, for the twelve months ended October 31, 2010 and estimated amounts
for the twelve months ended October 31, 2011 were as follows (amounts in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended January 31: |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Stock-compensation expense recognized |
|
$ |
4,588 |
|
|
$ |
4,909 |
|
Income tax benefit related to stock option grants |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
1,655 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twelve months ended October 31: |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
(Estimated) |
|
|
|
|
Stock-compensation expense recognized |
|
$ |
8,715 |
|
|
$ |
9,332 |
|
Income tax benefit related to stock option grants |
|
$ |
|
|
|
$ |
3,266 |
|
Non-Performance Based Restricted Stock Units:
In December 2010 and 2009, the Company issued restricted stock units (RSUs) relating to shares of
the Companys common stock to several employees. These RSUs generally vest in annual installments
over a four-year period. The value of the RSUs was determined to be equal to the number of shares
of the Companys common stock to be issued pursuant to the RSUs, multiplied by the closing price of
the Companys common stock on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) on the date the RSUs were
awarded. Information regarding these RSUs in the three-month periods ended January 31, 2011 and
2010 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
RSUs issued: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number issued |
|
|
15,497 |
|
|
|
19,663 |
|
Closing price of Company common stock
on date of issuance |
|
$ |
19.32 |
|
|
$ |
18.38 |
|
Aggregate fair value of RSUs issued (in thousands) |
|
$ |
299 |
|
|
$ |
361 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RSU expense recognized (in thousands): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended January 31, |
|
$ |
27 |
|
|
$ |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At January 31: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate outstanding RSUs |
|
|
35,160 |
|
|
|
19,663 |
|
Cumulative unamortized value of RSUs (in thousands) |
|
$ |
496 |
|
|
$ |
351 |
|
Performance Based Restricted Stock Units:
In December 2010 and 2009, the Executive Compensation Committee of the Companys Board of Directors
approved awards of performance-based restricted stock units (Performance-Based RSUs) relating to
shares of the Companys common stock. The Performance-Based RSUs will vest and the recipients will
be entitled to receive the underlying shares if the average closing price of the Companys common
stock on the NYSE, measured over any twenty consecutive trading days ending on or prior to five
years from date of issuance of the Performance-Based RSUs increases 30% or more over the closing
price of the Companys common stock on the NYSE on the date of issuance (Target Price); provided
the recipients continue to be employed by the Company or serve on the board of directors of the
Company (as applicable) as stipulated in the award document. The Company determined the aggregate
value of the Performance-Based RSUs using a lattice-based option pricing model.
15
Information regarding the issuance, valuation assumptions, amortization and unamortized balances of
the Companys Performance-Based RSUs in fiscal 2011 and 2010 is as follows:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Performance-Based RSUs issued: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number issued |
|
|
306,000 |
|
|
|
200,000 |
|
Closing price of Company common stock
on date of issuance |
|
$ |
19.32 |
|
|
$ |
18.38 |
|
Target price |
|
$ |
25.12 |
|
|
$ |
23.89 |
|
Volatility |
|
|
48.22 |
% |
|
|
49.92 |
% |
Risk-free interest rate |
|
|
1.99 |
% |
|
|
2.43 |
% |
Expected life |
|
3.0 years |
|
|
3.0 years |
|
Aggregate fair value of Performance-Based
RSUs issued (in thousands) |
|
$ |
4,994 |
|
|
$ |
3,160 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance-Based RSU expense
recognized (in thousands): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended January 31, |
|
$ |
752 |
|
|
$ |
421 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At January 31: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate outstanding Performance-Based RSUs |
|
|
706,000 |
|
|
|
400,000 |
|
Cumulative unamortized value of Performance-Based
RSUs (in thousands) |
|
$ |
7,878 |
|
|
$ |
5,336 |
|
9. Fair Value Disclosures
A summary of assets and (liabilities) at January 31, 2011 and October 31, 2010 related to the
Companys financial instruments, measured at fair value on a recurring basis, is set forth below
(amounts in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value |
|
|
|
Fair value |
|
January 31, |
|
|
October 31, |
|
Financial Instrument |
|
hierarchy |
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
U.S. Treasury Securities |
|
Level 1 |
|
$ |
85,252 |
|
|
$ |
175,370 |
|
U.S. Agency Securities |
|
Level 1 |
|
$ |
89,230 |
|
|
$ |
22,497 |
|
Corporate Securities |
|
Level 1 |
|
$ |
29,221 |
|
|
|
|
|
Pre-refunded Municipal Securities |
|
Level 1 |
|
$ |
10,728 |
|
|
|
|
|
Residential Mortgage Loans Held for Sale |
|
Level 2 |
|
$ |
40,863 |
|
|
$ |
93,644 |
|
Forward Loan Commitments Residential
Mortgage Loans Held for Sale |
|
Level 2 |
|
$ |
376 |
|
|
$ |
(459 |
) |
Interest Rate Lock Commitments (IRLCs) |
|
Level 2 |
|
$ |
(1,092 |
) |
|
$ |
130 |
|
Forward Loan Commitments IRLCs |
|
Level 2 |
|
$ |
1,092 |
|
|
$ |
(130 |
) |
At January 31, 2011 and October 31, 2010, the carrying value of cash and cash equivalents and
restricted cash approximate fair value.
At the end of the reporting period, the Company determines the fair value of its mortgage loans
held for sale and the forward loan commitments it has entered into as a hedge against the interest
rate risk of its mortgage loans using the market approach to determine fair value. The evaluation
is based on the current market pricing of mortgage loans with similar terms and values as of the
reporting date and by applying such pricing to the mortgage loan portfolio. The Company recognizes
the difference between the fair value and the unpaid principal balance of mortgage loans held for
sale as a gain or loss. In addition, the Company recognizes the fair value of its forward loan
commitment as a gain or loss. These gains and losses are included in interest and other income.
Interest income on mortgage loans held for sale is calculated based upon the stated interest rate
of each loan and is included in interest and other income.
16
The table below provides, for the periods indicated, the aggregate unpaid principal and fair value
of mortgage loans held for sale as of the date indicated (amounts in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aggregate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unpaid principal |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
balance |
|
|
Fair value |
|
|
Excess |
|
January 31, 2011 |
|
$ |
40,850 |
|
|
$ |
40,863 |
|
|
$ |
13 |
|
January 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
31,472 |
|
|
$ |
31,647 |
|
|
$ |
175 |
|
IRLCs represent individual borrower agreements that commit the Company to lend at a specified price
for a specified period as long as there is no violation of any condition established in the
commitment contract. These commitments have varying degrees of interest rate risk. The Company
utilizes best-efforts forward loan commitments (Forward Commitments) to hedge the interest rate
risk of the IRLCs and residential mortgage loans held for sale. Forward Commitments represent
contracts with third-party investors for the future delivery of loans whereby the Company agrees to
make delivery at a specified future date at a specified price. The IRLCs and Forward Commitments
are considered derivative financial instruments under ASC 815, Derivatives and Hedging, which
requires derivative financial instruments to be recorded at fair value. The Company estimates the
fair value of such commitments based on the estimated fair value of the underlying mortgage loan
and, in the case of IRLCs, the probability that the mortgage loan will fund within the terms of the
IRLC. To manage the risk of nonperformance of investors regarding the Forward Commitments, the
Company assesses the credit worthiness of the investors on a periodic basis.
As of January 31, 2011 and October 31, 2010, the amortized cost, gross unrealized holding gains,
gross unrealized holding losses, and fair value of marketable securities were as follows (in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 31, |
|
|
October 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Amortized cost |
|
$ |
214,273 |
|
|
$ |
197,699 |
|
Gross unrealized holding gains |
|
$ |
191 |
|
|
$ |
180 |
|
Gross unrealized holding losses |
|
$ |
33 |
|
|
$ |
12 |
|
Fair value |
|
$ |
214,431 |
|
|
$ |
197,867 |
|
The remaining contractual maturities of marketable securities as of January 31, 2011 ranged from
less than one month to 13 months.
The Company recognizes inventory impairment charges based on the difference in the carrying value
of the inventory and its fair value at the time of the evaluation. The fair value of the
aforementioned inventory was determined using Level 3 criteria. See Note 1, Significant Accounting
Policies, Inventory for additional information regarding the Companys methodology on determining
fair value. The table below provides, for the periods indicated, the fair value of inventory whose
carrying value was adjusted and the amount of impairment charges recognized (amounts in thousands).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of |
|
|
Impairment |
|
|
|
inventory, net |
|
|
charges |
|
Three months ended: |
|
of impairment |
|
|
recognized |
|
January 31, 2011 |
|
$ |
56,105 |
|
|
$ |
5,475 |
|
January 31, 2010 |
|
$ |
82,500 |
|
|
$ |
31,750 |
|
The book value and estimated fair value of the Companys debt at January 31, 2011 and October 31,
2010 was as follows (amounts in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 31, 2011 |
|
|
October 31, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Estimated |
|
|
|
Book value |
|
|
fair value |
|
|
Book value |
|
|
fair value |
|
Loans payable (a) |
|
$ |
104,389 |
|
|
$ |
94,829 |
|
|
$ |
94,491 |
|
|
$ |
87,751 |
|
Senior notes (b) |
|
|
1,554,460 |
|
|
|
1,663,777 |
|
|
|
1,554,460 |
|
|
|
1,679,052 |
|
Mortgage company
warehouse loan (c) |
|
|
19,410 |
|
|
|
19,410 |
|
|
|
72,367 |
|
|
|
72,367 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,678,259 |
|
|
$ |
1,778,017 |
|
|
$ |
1,721,318 |
|
|
$ |
1,839,170 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
The estimated fair value of loans payable was based upon the interest rates that the Company believed were
available to it for loans with similar terms and remaining maturities as of the applicable
valuation date. |
|
(b) |
|
The estimated fair value of the Companys senior notes is based upon their indicated
market prices. |
|
(c) |
|
The Company believes that the carrying value of its mortgage company loan borrowings
approximates their fair value. |
17
10. Income (Loss) per Share Information
Information pertaining to the calculation of income(loss) per share, common stock equivalents,
weighted average number of anti-dilutive option and shares issued for the three-month periods ended
January 31, 2011 and 2010 is as follows (amounts in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Basic weighted-average shares |
|
|
166,677 |
|
|
|
165,237 |
|
Common stock equivalents (a) |
|
|
1,444 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diluted weighted-average shares |
|
|
168,121 |
|
|
|
165,237 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock equivalents excluded from diluted
weighted-average shares due to anti-dilutive effect (a) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,160 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted average number of anti-dilutive options (b) |
|
|
8,383 |
|
|
|
8,519 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shares issued under stock incentive and
employee stock purchase plans |
|
|
414 |
|
|
|
602 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Common stock equivalents represent the dilutive effect of outstanding in-the-money stock
options using the treasury stock method. For the three-month period ended January 31, 2010, there were no
incremental shares attributed to outstanding options to purchase common stock because the Company had a net loss in the
period and any incremental shares would be anti-dilutive. |
|
(b) |
|
Based upon the average closing price of the Companys common stock on the NYSE for the period. |
11. Stock Repurchase Program
In March 2003, the Companys Board of Directors authorized the repurchase of up to 20 million
shares of its common stock, par value $.01, from time to time, in open market transactions or
otherwise, for the purpose of providing shares for its various employee benefit plans. Information
about the Companys share repurchase program for the three-month periods ended January 31, 2011 and
2010 is in the table below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Number of shares purchased |
|
|
8,000 |
|
|
|
7,000 |
|
Average price per share |
|
$ |
19.23 |
|
|
$ |
19.11 |
|
Remaining authorization at January 31: (in thousands) |
|
|
11,822 |
|
|
|
11,855 |
|
12. Legal Proceedings
The Company is involved in various claims and litigation arising principally in the ordinary course
of business.
In January 2006, the Company received a request for information pursuant to Section 308 of the
Clean Water Act from Region 3 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning storm
water discharge practices in connection with its homebuilding projects in the states that comprise
EPA Region 3. The Company provided information to the EPA pursuant to the request. The U.S.
Department of Justice (DOJ) has now assumed responsibility for the oversight of this matter and
has alleged that the Company has violated regulatory requirements applicable to storm water
discharges and that it may seek injunctive relief and/or civil penalties. The Company is now
engaged in settlement discussions with representatives from the DOJ and the EPA.
In April 2007, a securities class action suit was filed against Toll Brothers, Inc. and Robert I.
Toll and Bruce E. Toll in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Companys common stock between December 9, 2004
and November 8, 2005. In August 2007, an amended complaint was filed adding additional directors
and officers as defendants. The amended complaint filed on behalf of the purported class alleges
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing various materially false and
misleading statements that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Companys stock. It further alleges that the individual defendants sold shares for substantial
gains during the class period. The purported
class is seeking compensatory damages, counsel fees, and expert costs. The parties reached a
settlement agreement in principle in July, 2010, which was subject to approval by the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In March 2011, the Court issued an order, granting final approval to the settlement reached between the parties.
The entire settlement amount will be funded by the
Companys insurers.
18
In November 2008, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Chancery Court of Delaware by
Milton Pfeiffer against Robert I. Toll, Zvi Barzilay, Joel H. Rassman, Bruce E. Toll, Paul E.
Shapiro, Robert S. Blank, Carl B. Marbach, and Richard J. Braemer. The plaintiff purports to bring
his claims on behalf of Toll Brothers, Inc. and alleges that the director and officer defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders with respect to the stock sales
alleged in the securities class action discussed above, by selling while in possession of material
inside information about the Company. The plaintiff seeks contribution and indemnification from the
individual director and officer defendants for any liability found against the Company in the
securities class action suit. In addition, again purportedly on the Companys behalf, the plaintiff
seeks disgorgement of the defendants profits from their stock sales.
On March 4, 2009, a second shareholder derivative action was brought by Olivero Martinez in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. This case was brought against the
eleven then-current members of the Companys board of directors and the Companys Chief Accounting
Officer. The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust
enrichment during the period from February 2005 to November 2006. The complaint further alleges
that certain of the defendants sold Company stock during this period while in possession of the
allegedly non-public, material information about the role of speculative investors in the Companys
sales and plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits from these sales. The complaint also asserts a
claim for equitable indemnity for costs and expenses incurred by the Company in connection with
defending the securities class action discussed above.
On April 1, 2009, a third shareholder derivative action was filed by William Hall, also in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against the eleven then-current members of
the Companys board of directors and the Companys Chief Accounting Officer. This Complaint is
identical to the previous shareholder complaint filed in Philadelphia, PA and, on July 14, 2009,
the two cases were consolidated. On April 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint.
The Companys Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws provide for indemnification of its directors
and officers. The Company has also entered into individual indemnification agreements with each of
its directors.
On December 9, 2009 and February 10, 2010, the Company was named as a defendant in three purported
class action suits filed by homeowners relating to allegedly defective drywall manufactured in
China. These suits are all pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana as part of In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litigation, MDL No.
2047. The complaints also name as defendants other home builders, as well as other parties claimed
to be involved in the manufacture, sale, importation, brokerage, distribution, and installation of
the drywall. The plaintiffs claim that the drywall, which was installed by independent
subcontractors in certain homes built by the Company, caused damage to certain items and building
materials in the homes, as well as personal injuries. The complaints seek damages for, among other
things, the costs of repairing the homes, diminution in value to the homes, replacement of certain
personal property, and personal injuries. The Company has not yet responded to these suits. See
Note 13, Commitments and Contingencies, for additional information regarding Chinese-made drywall
in our homes.
Due to the high degree of judgment required in determining the amount of potential loss related to
the various claims and litigation in which the Company is involved in, including those noted above,
and the inherent variability in predicting future settlements and judicial decisions, the Company
cannot estimate a range of reasonably possible losses in excess of its accruals for these matters.
The Company believes that adequate provision for resolution of all claims and pending litigation
has been made for probable losses and the disposition of these matters is not expected to have a
material adverse effect on the Companys results of operations and liquidity or on its financial
condition.
13. Commitments and Contingencies
Generally, the Companys option and purchase agreements to acquire land parcels do not require the
Company to purchase those land parcels, although the Company may, in some cases, forfeit any
deposit balance outstanding if and when it terminates an option and purchase agreement. If market
conditions are weak, approvals needed to develop the land are uncertain or other factors exist that
make the purchase undesirable, the Company may not expect to acquire the land. Whether an option
and purchase agreement is legally terminated or not, the Company
reviews the amount recorded for the land parcel subject to the option and purchase agreement to
determine if the amount is recoverable. While the Company may not have formally terminated the
option and purchase agreements for those land parcels that it does not expect to acquire, it has
written off any non-refundable deposits and costs previously capitalized to such land parcels in
the periods that it determined such costs were not recoverable.
19
Information regarding the Companys purchase commitments at January 31, 2011 and October 31, 2010
is provided in the table below (amounts in millions).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 31, |
|
|
October 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Aggregate purchase commitments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unrelated parties |
|
$ |
421.0 |
|
|
$ |
419.2 |
|
Unconsolidated entities that Company has
investments in |
|
|
136.0 |
|
|
|
131.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
557.0 |
|
|
$ |
550.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deposits against aggregate purchase commitments |
|
$ |
52.7 |
|
|
$ |
47.1 |
|
Credits to be received from unconsolidated entities |
|
|
37.3 |
|
|
|
37.3 |
|
Additional cash required to acquire land |
|
|
467.0 |
|
|
|
466.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
557.0 |
|
|
$ |
550.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of additional cash required to acquire land
included in accrued expenses |
|
$ |
58.4 |
|
|
$ |
77.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Company has additional land parcels under option that have been excluded from the
aforementioned aggregate purchase amounts since it does not believe that it will complete the
purchase of these land parcels and no additional funds will be required from the Company to
terminate these contracts.
At January 31, 2011, the Company had investments in and advances to a number of unconsolidated
entities, was committed to invest or advance additional funds and had guaranteed a portion of the
indebtedness and/or loan commitments of these entities. In addition, the Company was subject to
litigation related to two joint ventures in which it had an investment. See Note 3, Investments in
and Advances to Unconsolidated Entities, for more information regarding the Companys commitments
to these entities.
At January 31, 2011, the Company had outstanding surety bonds amounting to $359.8 million,
primarily related to its obligations to various governmental entities to construct improvements in
the Companys various communities. The Company estimates that $150.6 million of work remains on
these improvements. The Company has an additional $70.5 million of surety bonds outstanding that
guarantee other obligations of the Company. The Company does not believe it is probable that any
outstanding bonds will be drawn upon.
At January 31, 2011, the Company had agreements of sale outstanding to deliver 1,472 homes with an
aggregate sales value of $825.2 million.
The Companys mortgage subsidiary provides mortgage financing for a portion of the Companys home
closings. The Companys mortgage subsidiary funds its commitments through a combination of its own
capital, capital provided from Toll Brothers, Inc, its $75 million repurchase facility and from the
sale of mortgage loans to various investors. For those home buyers to whom the Companys mortgage
subsidiary provides mortgages, it determines whether the home buyer qualifies for the mortgage he
or she is seeking based upon information provided by the home buyer and other sources. For those
home buyers that qualify, the Companys mortgage subsidiary provides the home buyer with a mortgage
commitment that specifies the terms and conditions of a proposed mortgage loan based upon
then-current market conditions. Prior to the actual closing of the home and funding of the
mortgage, the
20
home buyer will lock in an interest rate based upon the terms of the commitment. At
the time of rate lock, the Companys mortgage subsidiary agrees to sell the proposed mortgage loan
to one of several outside recognized mortgage financing institutions (investors), which is
willing to honor the terms and conditions, including interest rate, committed to the home buyer.
The Company believes that these investors have adequate financial resources to
honor their commitments to its mortgage subsidiary. Information regarding its mortgage commitments
at January 31, 2011 and October 31, 2010 is provided in the table below (amounts in millions).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 31, |
|
|
October 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Aggregate mortgage loan commitments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRLCs |
|
$ |
130.8 |
|
|
$ |
169.5 |
|
Non-IRLCs |
|
|
271.7 |
|
|
|
263.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
402.5 |
|
|
$ |
433.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investor commitments to purchase: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IRLCs |
|
$ |
130.8 |
|
|
$ |
169.5 |
|
Mortgage loans receivable |
|
|
40.6 |
|
|
|
91.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
171.4 |
|
|
$ |
261.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amount of commitments with unlocked interest
rates by home buyer |
|
$ |
271.7 |
|
|
$ |
263.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As of January 31, 2011, the Company has confirmed the presence of defective Chinese-made drywall in
a small number of its West Florida homes, which were delivered between May 2006 and January 2008.
The anticipated cost of the remediation of these homes is included in the amounts that the Company
previously accrued. The Company believes that adequate provision for costs associated with the
remediation of homes containing Chinese-made drywall has been made and that such costs are not
expected to have a material adverse effect on the Companys results of operations and liquidity or
on its financial condition.
14. Interest and Other Income
Interest and other includes the activity of the Companys non-core ancillary businesses which
include its mortgage, title, landscaping, security monitoring, Gibraltar Asset Management and golf
course and country club operations. Revenues and expenses for the three months ended January 31,
2011 and 2010 were as follows (amounts in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Revenues |
|
$ |
13,823 |
|
|
$ |
9,890 |
|
Expenses |
|
$ |
13,266 |
|
|
$ |
8,399 |
|
15. Geographic Segments
Revenue and (loss) income before income taxes for each of the Companys geographic segments for the
three-month periods ended January 31, 2011 and 2010 were as follows (amounts in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Revenue: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North |
|
$ |
82.5 |
|
|
$ |
91.4 |
|
Mid-Atlantic |
|
|
103.8 |
|
|
|
101.1 |
|
South |
|
|
61.9 |
|
|
|
55.3 |
|
West |
|
|
85.9 |
|
|
|
78.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
334.1 |
|
|
$ |
326.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) income before income taxes: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North |
|
$ |
7.1 |
|
|
$ |
(1.8 |
) |
Mid-Atlantic |
|
|
8.1 |
|
|
|
(5.1 |
) |
South |
|
|
(1.4 |
) |
|
|
(8.8 |
) |
West |
|
|
(15.2 |
) |
|
|
(11.4 |
) |
Corporate and other |
|
|
(15.6 |
) |
|
|
(29.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
(17.0 |
) |
|
$ |
(56.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21
Corporate and other is comprised principally of general corporate expenses such as the offices of
the Executive Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, and the corporate finance,
accounting, audit, tax, human
resources, risk management, marketing and legal groups, directly expensed interest, offset in part
by interest income and income from the Companys ancillary businesses.
Total assets for each of the Companys geographic segments at January 31, 2011 and October 31, 2010
are shown in the table below (amounts in millions).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 31, |
|
|
October 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
North |
|
$ |
991.1 |
|
|
$ |
961.3 |
|
Mid-Atlantic |
|
|
1,176.8 |
|
|
|
1,161.5 |
|
South |
|
|
749.4 |
|
|
|
693.8 |
|
West |
|
|
680.4 |
|
|
|
712.4 |
|
Corporate and other |
|
|
1,463.7 |
|
|
|
1,642.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
5,061.4 |
|
|
$ |
5,171.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate and other is comprised principally of cash and cash equivalents, marketable securities,
restricted cash, income tax refund recoverable and the assets of the Companys manufacturing
facilities and mortgage subsidiary.
The Company provided for inventory impairment charges and the expensing of costs that it believed
not to be recoverable and write-downs of investments in unconsolidated entities that it believes to
be other than temporarily impaired for the three-month periods ended January 31, 2011 and 2010 as
shown in the table below; the carrying value of inventory and investments in and advances to
unconsolidated entities for each of the Companys geographic segments at January 31, 2011 and
October 31, 2010 are also shown (amounts in millions).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net carrying value |
|
|
Impairments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended |
|
|
|
January 31, |
|
|
October 31, |
|
|
January 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Inventory: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land controlled for
future communities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North |
|
$ |
11.1 |
|
|
$ |
3.6 |
|
|
$ |
0.1 |
|
|
$ |
1.6 |
|
Mid-Atlantic |
|
|
16.0 |
|
|
|
14.8 |
|
|
|
0.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
South |
|
|
9.1 |
|
|
|
11.0 |
|
|
|
0.3 |
|
|
|
(0.2 |
) |
West |
|
|
11.4 |
|
|
|
2.5 |
|
|
|
(0.9 |
) |
|
|
.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
47.6 |
|
|
|
31.9 |
|
|
|
(0.4 |
) |
|
|
1.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Land owned for
future communities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North |
|
|
240.4 |
|
|
|
208.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mid-Atlantic |
|
|
447.8 |
|
|
|
452.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.0 |
|
South |
|
|
169.4 |
|
|
|
119.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
West |
|
|
133.1 |
|
|
|
142.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
990.7 |
|
|
|
924.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Operating communities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North |
|
|
669.5 |
|
|
|
685.3 |
|
|
|
1.3 |
|
|
|
4.7 |
|
Mid-Atlantic |
|
|
689.7 |
|
|
|
662.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.6 |
|
South |
|
|
449.0 |
|
|
|
443.3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.1 |
|
West |
|
|
513.9 |
|
|
|
494.8 |
|
|
|
4.2 |
|
|
|
10.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,322.1 |
|
|
|
2,285.8 |
|
|
|
5.5 |
|
|
|
22.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
3,360.4 |
|
|
$ |
3,241.7 |
|
|
$ |
5.1 |
|
|
$ |
33.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investments in and
advances to
unconsolidated
entities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North |
|
$ |
45.9 |
|
|
$ |
47.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
South |
|
|
51.5 |
|
|
|
51.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
West |
|
|
18.7 |
|
|
|
58.5 |
|
|
$ |
20.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
Corporate |
|
|
41.7 |
|
|
|
40.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
157.8 |
|
|
$ |
198.4 |
|
|
$ |
20.0 |
|
|
$ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22
16. Supplemental Disclosure to Statements of Cash Flows
The following are supplemental disclosures to the statements of cash flows for the three months
ended January 31, 2011 and 2010 (amounts in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Cash flow information: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interest paid, net of amount capitalized |
|
$ |
587 |
|
|
$ |
4,154 |
|
Income taxes paid |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
182 |
|
Income tax refunds |
|
$ |
381 |
|
|
|
|
|
Non-cash activity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of inventory acquired through seller financing
municipal bonds or recorded due to VIE criteria |
|
$ |
21,584 |
|
|
$ |
19,646 |
|
Cost of inventory accrued under specific performance contracts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Miscellaneous increases to inventory |
|
$ |
2,137 |
|
|
$ |
1,772 |
|
Reclassification of inventory to property, construction
and office equipment |
|
$ |
20,005 |
|
|
|
|
|
Income tax benefit related to exercise of employee stock options |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
2,826 |
|
Reduction of investments in unconsolidated entities
due to reduction in letters of credit or accrued liabilities |
|
$ |
19,106 |
|
|
$ |
3,802 |
|
Defined benefit retirement plan amendment |
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
1,086 |
|
Miscellaneous increases to investments in unconsolidated entities |
|
$ |
540 |
|
|
$ |
674 |
|
Stock awards |
|
$ |
24 |
|
|
$ |
22 |
|
17. Supplemental Guarantor Information
A 100% owned subsidiary of the Company, Toll Brothers Finance Corp. (the Subsidiary Issuer),
issued $300 million of 6.875% Senior Notes due 2012 on November 22, 2002; $250 million of 5.95%
Senior Notes due 2013 on September 3, 2003; $300 million of 4.95% Senior Notes due 2014 on March
16, 2004; $300 million of 5.15% Senior Notes due 2015 on June 2, 2005; $400 million of 8.91% Senior
Notes due 2017 on April 13, 2009; and $250 million of 6.75% Senior Notes due 2019 on September 22,
2009. In fiscal 2009, the Subsidiary Issuer redeemed $105.1 million of its 6.875% Senior Notes due
2012 and $94.9 million of its 5.95% Senior Notes due 2013. The obligations of the Subsidiary Issuer
to pay principal, premiums, if any, and interest is guaranteed jointly and severally on a senior
basis by the Company and substantially all of the Companys 100% owned home building subsidiaries
(the Guarantor Subsidiaries). The guarantees are full and unconditional. The Companys non-home
building subsidiaries and several of its home building subsidiaries (the Non-Guarantor
Subsidiaries) do not guarantee the debt. Separate financial statements and other disclosures
concerning the Guarantor Subsidiaries are not presented because management has determined that such
disclosures would not be material to investors. Prior to the above senior debt issuances, the
Subsidiary Issuer did not have any operations.
23
Supplemental consolidating financial information of Toll Brothers, Inc., the Subsidiary Issuer, the
Guarantor Subsidiaries, the Non-Guarantor Subsidiaries and the eliminations to arrive at Toll
Brothers, Inc. on a consolidated basis is presented below (amounts in thousands $).
Consolidating Balance Sheet at January 31, 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toll |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brothers, |
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
Guarantor |
|
|
Guarantor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inc. |
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
777,903 |
|
|
|
108,696 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
886,599 |
|
Marketable securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
214,431 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
214,431 |
|
Restricted cash |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52,408 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
52,408 |
|
Inventory |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,901,068 |
|
|
|
459,369 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,360,437 |
|
Property, construction and office
equipment, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
78,198 |
|
|
|
23,184 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
101,382 |
|
Receivables, prepaid expenses and
other assets |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7,777 |
|
|
|
59,300 |
|
|
|
23,849 |
|
|
|
(1,685 |
) |
|
|
89,241 |
|
Mortgage loans receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,863 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
40,863 |
|
Customer deposits held in escrow |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11,966 |
|
|
|
4,728 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
16,694 |
|
Investments in and advances to
unconsolidated entities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
115,346 |
|
|
|
42,429 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
157,775 |
|
Income tax refund recoverable |
|
|
141,590 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
141,590 |
|
Investments in and advances to
consolidated entities |
|
|
2,569,482 |
|
|
|
1,565,816 |
|
|
|
(799,736 |
) |
|
|
(372,437 |
) |
|
|
(2,963,125 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,711,072 |
|
|
|
1,573,593 |
|
|
|
3,410,884 |
|
|
|
330,681 |
|
|
|
(2,964,810 |
) |
|
|
5,061,420 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans payable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60,807 |
|
|
|
43,582 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
104,389 |
|
Senior notes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,544,588 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,544,588 |
|
Mortgage company warehouse loan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,410 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
19,410 |
|
Customer deposits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
69,812 |
|
|
|
4,949 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
74,761 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83,570 |
|
|
|
42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
83,612 |
|
Accrued expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
29,005 |
|
|
|
209,728 |
|
|
|
284,807 |
|
|
|
(1,507 |
) |
|
|
522,033 |
|
Income taxes payable |
|
|
144,210 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
142,210 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
144,210 |
|
|
|
1,573,593 |
|
|
|
423,917 |
|
|
|
350,790 |
|
|
|
(1,507 |
) |
|
|
2,491,003 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock |
|
|
1,668 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,003 |
|
|
|
(2,003 |
) |
|
|
1,668 |
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
|
367,792 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,420 |
|
|
|
2,734 |
|
|
|
(7,154 |
) |
|
|
367,792 |
|
Retained earnings |
|
|
2,197,873 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,982,887 |
|
|
|
(28,401 |
) |
|
|
(2,954,486 |
) |
|
|
2,197,873 |
|
Treasury stock, at cost |
|
|
(131 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(131 |
) |
Accumulated other
comprehensive loss |
|
|
(340 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(340 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
340 |
|
|
|
(340 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity |
|
|
2,566,862 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,986,967 |
|
|
|
(23,664 |
) |
|
|
|
(2,963,303 |
) |
|
|
2,566,862 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,555 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,555 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
2,566,862 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,986,967 |
|
|
|
(20,109 |
) |
|
|
(2,963,303 |
) |
|
|
2,570,417 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,711,072 |
|
|
|
1,573,593 |
|
|
|
3,410,884 |
|
|
|
330,681 |
|
|
|
(2,964,810 |
) |
|
|
5,061,420 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
24
Consolidating Balance Sheet at October 31, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toll |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brothers, |
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
Guarantor |
|
|
Guarantor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inc. |
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
ASSETS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
930,387 |
|
|
|
108,673 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,039,060 |
|
Marketable securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
197,867 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
197,867 |
|
Restricted cash |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60,906 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
60,906 |
|
Inventory |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,862,796 |
|
|
|
378,929 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,241,725 |
|
Property, construction and office
equipment, net |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79,516 |
|
|
|
400 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
79,916 |
|
Receivables, prepaid expenses and
other assets |
|
|
27 |
|
|
|
8,104 |
|
|
|
66,280 |
|
|
|
24,565 |
|
|
|
(1,937 |
) |
|
|
97,039 |
|
Mortgage loans receivable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93,644 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
93,644 |
|
Customer deposits held in escrow |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13,790 |
|
|
|
7,576 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
21,366 |
|
Investments in and advances to
unconsolidated entities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
116,247 |
|
|
|
82,195 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
198,442 |
|
Income tax refund recoverable |
|
|
141,590 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
141,590 |
|
Investments in and advances to
consolidated entities |
|
|
2,578,195 |
|
|
|
1,562,109 |
|
|
|
(871,125 |
) |
|
|
(315,074 |
) |
|
|
(2,954,105 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,719,812 |
|
|
|
1,570,213 |
|
|
|
3,456,664 |
|
|
|
380,908 |
|
|
|
(2,956,042 |
) |
|
|
5,171,555 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LIABILITIES AND EQUITY |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Liabilities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loans payable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
63,442 |
|
|
|
31,049 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
94,491 |
|
Senior notes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,544,110 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,544,110 |
|
Mortgage company warehouse loan |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72,367 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72,367 |
|
Customer deposits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
72,819 |
|
|
|
4,337 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
77,156 |
|
Accounts payable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91,498 |
|
|
|
240 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
91,738 |
|
Accrued expenses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
26,103 |
|
|
|
242,793 |
|
|
|
303,413 |
|
|
|
(1,988 |
) |
|
|
570,321 |
|
Income taxes payable |
|
|
164,359 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,000 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
162,359 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total liabilities |
|
|
164,359 |
|
|
|
1,570,213 |
|
|
|
470,552 |
|
|
|
409,406 |
|
|
|
(1,988 |
) |
|
|
2,612,542 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholders equity: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Common stock |
|
|
1,664 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,003 |
|
|
|
(2,003 |
) |
|
|
1,664 |
|
Additional paid-in capital |
|
|
360,006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,420 |
|
|
|
2,734 |
|
|
|
(7,154 |
) |
|
|
360,006 |
|
Retained earnings |
|
|
2,194,456 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,982,269 |
|
|
|
(36,795 |
) |
|
|
(2,945,474 |
) |
|
|
2,194,456 |
|
Treasury stock, at cost |
|
|
(96 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(96 |
) |
Accumulated other
comprehensive loss |
|
|
(577 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(577 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
577 |
|
|
|
(577 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total stockholders equity |
|
|
2,555,453 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,986,112 |
|
|
|
(32,058 |
) |
|
|
(2,954,054 |
) |
|
|
2,555,453 |
|
Noncontrolling interest |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,560 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,560 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total equity |
|
|
2,555,453 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,986,112 |
|
|
|
(28,498 |
) |
|
|
(2,954,054 |
) |
|
|
2,559,013 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,719,812 |
|
|
|
1,570,213 |
|
|
|
3,456,664 |
|
|
|
380,908 |
|
|
|
(2,956,042 |
) |
|
|
5,171,555 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25
Condensed Consolidating Statement of Operations for the three months ended January 31, 2011 ($ in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toll |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brothers, |
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
Guarantor |
|
|
Guarantor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inc. |
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
319,843 |
|
|
|
14,273 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
334,116 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
268,256 |
|
|
|
15,947 |
|
|
|
(2,238 |
) |
|
|
281,965 |
|
Selling, general and
administrative |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
341 |
|
|
|
63,988 |
|
|
|
8,528 |
|
|
|
(11,634 |
) |
|
|
61,251 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
25,845 |
|
|
|
1,112 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(25,845 |
) |
|
|
1,112 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
26,186 |
|
|
|
333,356 |
|
|
|
24,475 |
|
|
|
(39,717 |
) |
|
|
344,328 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from operations |
|
|
(28 |
) |
|
|
(26,186 |
) |
|
|
(13,513 |
) |
|
|
(10,202 |
) |
|
|
39,717 |
|
|
|
(10,212 |
) |
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) income from
unconsolidated entities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,521 |
|
|
|
(17,523 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11,002 |
) |
Interest and other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
26,186 |
|
|
|
(10,027 |
) |
|
|
9,339 |
|
|
|
(21,331 |
) |
|
|
4,167 |
|
Loss from subsidiaries |
|
|
(17,019 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
17,019 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income tax benefit |
|
|
(17,047 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(17,019 |
) |
|
|
(18,386 |
) |
|
|
35,405 |
|
|
|
(17,047 |
) |
Income tax benefit |
|
|
(20,464 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(22,359 |
) |
|
|
(22,058 |
) |
|
|
44,417 |
|
|
|
(20,464 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
|
3,417 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,340 |
|
|
|
3,672 |
|
|
|
(9,012 |
) |
|
|
3,417 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Condensed Consolidating Statement of Operations for the three months ended January 31, 2010 ($ in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toll |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brothers, |
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
Guarantor |
|
|
Guarantor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inc. |
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
313,065 |
|
|
|
13,633 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
326,698 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of revenues |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
303,585 |
|
|
|
13,893 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
317,487 |
|
Selling, general and
administrative |
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
348 |
|
|
|
67,080 |
|
|
|
5,130 |
|
|
|
(5,307 |
) |
|
|
67,273 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
26,845 |
|
|
|
7,257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(26,845 |
) |
|
|
7,257 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
22 |
|
|
|
27,193 |
|
|
|
377,922 |
|
|
|
19,023 |
|
|
|
(32,143 |
) |
|
|
392,017 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from operations |
|
|
(22 |
) |
|
|
(27,193 |
) |
|
|
(64,857 |
) |
|
|
(5,390 |
) |
|
|
32,143 |
|
|
|
(65,319 |
) |
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Income from
unconsolidated entities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
366 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
366 |
|
Interest and other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
27,193 |
|
|
|
7,759 |
|
|
|
7,203 |
|
|
|
(33,956 |
) |
|
|
8,199 |
|
Loss from subsidiaries |
|
|
(56,732 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
56,732 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) income before
income tax benefit |
|
|
(56,754 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(56,732 |
) |
|
|
1,813 |
|
|
|
54,919 |
|
|
|
(56,754 |
) |
Income tax benefit (provision) |
|
|
16,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12,287 |
|
|
|
(554 |
) |
|
|
(11,733 |
) |
|
|
16,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income |
|
|
(40,754 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(44,445 |
) |
|
|
1,259 |
|
|
|
43,186 |
|
|
|
(40,754 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
26
Condensed Consolidating Statement of Cash Flows for the three months ended
January 31, 2011 ($ in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toll |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brothers, |
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
Guarantor |
|
|
Guarantor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inc. |
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
Cash flow from operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income |
|
|
3,417 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,340 |
|
|
|
3,674 |
|
|
|
(9,014 |
) |
|
|
3,417 |
|
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net
cash (used in) provided by operating
activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
28 |
|
|
|
807 |
|
|
|
3,239 |
|
|
|
313 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,387 |
|
Stock-based compensation |
|
|
5,373 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,373 |
|
Impairments of investments in
unconsolidated entities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20,000 |
|
Income from unconsolidated entities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(5,922 |
) |
|
|
(3,076 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(8,998 |
) |
Distributions of earnings from
unconsolidated entities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
593 |
|
|
|
2,200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,793 |
|
Inventory impairments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,126 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5,126 |
|
Deferred tax benefit |
|
|
(6,589 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,589 |
) |
Deferred tax valuation allowance |
|
|
6,589 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,589 |
|
Change in fair value of mortgage loans
receivable and derivative instruments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
714 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
714 |
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease in inventory |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(39,214 |
) |
|
|
(81,661 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(120,875 |
) |
Origination of mortgage loans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(182,659 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(182,659 |
) |
Sale of mortgage loans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
233,891 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
233,891 |
|
Decrease in restricted cash |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,498 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8,498 |
|
Decrease (increase) in receivables,
prepaid expenses and other assets |
|
|
8,712 |
|
|
|
(3,709 |
) |
|
|
(69,228 |
) |
|
|
63,391 |
|
|
|
8,771 |
|
|
|
7,937 |
|
Increase (decrease) in customer deposits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,183 |
) |
|
|
3,460 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,277 |
|
(Decrease) in accounts payable and
accrued expenses |
|
|
(608 |
) |
|
|
2,902 |
|
|
|
(41,317 |
) |
|
|
(207 |
) |
|
|
243 |
|
|
|
(38,987 |
) |
Decrease in income taxes payable |
|
|
(20,082 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20,082 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by
operating activities |
|
|
(3,160 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(134,068 |
) |
|
|
60,040 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(77,188 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flow from investing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of property and equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(1,189 |
) |
|
|
(3,092 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,281 |
) |
Purchase of marketable securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(119,238 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(119,238 |
) |
Sale of marketable securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
102,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
102,500 |
|
Return of investments from
unconsolidated entities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,305 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6,305 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(11,622 |
) |
|
|
(3,092 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(14,714 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flow from financing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from loans payable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
266,035 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
266,035 |
|
Principal payments of loans payable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,794 |
) |
|
|
(322,960 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(329,754 |
) |
Proceeds from stock-based benefit plans |
|
|
3,323 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3,323 |
|
Purchase of treasury stock |
|
|
(163 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(163 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by
financing activities |
|
|
3,160 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(6,794 |
) |
|
|
(56,925 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(60,559 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (decrease) increase in cash and
cash equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(152,484 |
) |
|
|
23 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(152,461 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
930,387 |
|
|
|
108,673 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,039,060 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
777,903 |
|
|
|
108,696 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
886,599 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27
Condensed Consolidating Statement of Cash Flows for the three months ended
January 31, 2010 ($ in thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toll |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Non- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brothers, |
|
|
Subsidiary |
|
|
Guarantor |
|
|
Guarantor |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inc. |
|
|
Issuer |
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
|
Subsidiaries |
|
|
Eliminations |
|
|
Consolidated |
|
Cash flow from operating activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (loss) income |
|
|
(40,754 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(44,445 |
) |
|
|
1,259 |
|
|
|
43,186 |
|
|
|
(40,754 |
) |
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net
cash (used in) provided by operating
activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation and amortization |
|
|
|
|
|
|
821 |
|
|
|
3,461 |
|
|
|
204 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,486 |
|
Stock-based compensation |
|
|
4,944 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,944 |
|
Excess tax benefits from stock-based
compensation |
|
|
(2,694 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(2,694 |
) |
Income from unconsolidated entities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(366 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(366 |
) |
Debt redemption costs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
34 |
|
Inventory impairments |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33,381 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33,381 |
|
Changes in operating assets and liabilities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Decrease in inventory |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(51,835 |
) |
|
|
(427 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(52,262 |
) |
Origination of mortgage loans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(123,682 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(123,682 |
) |
Sale of mortgage loans |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135,359 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
135,359 |
|
Increase in income tax recoverable |
|
|
(20,437 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(20,437 |
) |
Decrease (increase) in receivables, prepaid
expenses and other assets |
|
|
50,068 |
|
|
|
(12,297 |
) |
|
|
(14,737 |
) |
|
|
24,379 |
|
|
|
(43,961 |
) |
|
|
3,452 |
|
Decrease in customer deposits |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,597 |
) |
|
|
(169 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(3,766 |
) |
Decrease in accounts payable and accrued
expenses |
|
|
(779 |
) |
|
|
11,476 |
|
|
|
(16,905 |
) |
|
|
(8,976 |
) |
|
|
775 |
|
|
|
(14,409 |
) |
Decrease in income taxes payable |
|
|
4,256 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4,256 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by operating
activities |
|
|
(5,396 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(95,009 |
) |
|
|
27,947 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(72,458 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flow from investing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Purchase of property and equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(276 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(276 |
) |
Purchase of
marketable securities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(85,450 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(85,450 |
) |
Investments in and advances to unconsolidated
entities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,952 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(4,952 |
) |
Return of investments from unconsolidated
entities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
700 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
700 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash used in investing activities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(89,978 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(89,978 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash flow from financing activities: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proceeds from loans payable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
178,437 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
178,437 |
|
Principal payments of loans payable |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(7,802 |
) |
|
|
(205,471 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(213,273 |
) |
Redemption of senior subordinated notes |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(47,872 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(47,872 |
) |
Proceeds from stock-based benefit plans |
|
|
2,844 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,844 |
|
Excess tax benefits from stock-based
compensation |
|
|
2,694 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2,694 |
|
Purchase of treasury stock |
|
|
(142 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(142 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net cash (used in) provided by financing
activities |
|
|
5,396 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(55,674 |
) |
|
|
(27,034 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(77,312 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash
equivalents |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(240,661 |
) |
|
|
913 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(239,748 |
) |
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,700,351 |
|
|
|
107,367 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,807,718 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cash and cash equivalents, end of period |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,459,690 |
|
|
|
108,280 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,567,970 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
28
|
|
|
ITEM 2. |
|
MANAGEMENTS DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (MD&A) |
Unless otherwise stated, net contracts signed represents a number or value equal to the gross
number or value of contracts signed during the relevant period, less the number or value of
contracts cancelled during the relevant period, which includes contracts that were signed during
the relevant period and in prior periods.
OVERVIEW
This housing downturn has been the longest and most severe since the Great Depression. However, we
believe that the medium and long-term futures for our company and industry are bright. A recent
Harvard University study projects that under both low- and high- growth scenarios housing demand
should exceed that of the previous three decades.
With very low housing production over the past few years, we believe that pent-up demand exists and
it will be released once the employment and economic picture improves and people regain confidence
in a home as a dependable investment.
In many markets, the pipeline of approved and improved home sites has dwindled as builders and
developers have lacked both the capital and the economic benefit for bringing sites through
approvals. Therefore, when demand picks up, builders and developers with approved land in
well-located markets will be poised to benefit. We believe that this will be particularly true for
us. Our land portfolio is heavily weighted in the metro Washington, DC to metro Boston corridor
where land is scarce, approvals are more difficult to obtain and overbuilding has been relatively
less prevalent than in the Southeast and Western regions.
The U.S. housing market continues to struggle from a significant slowdown that began in the fourth
quarter of our fiscal 2005. The value of our net contracts signed in fiscal 2010 was 79.4% lower
than the value of our net contracts signed in fiscal 2005, 12.8% higher than the value of our net
contracts signed in fiscal 2009 and 8.5% and 51.1% lower than the value of our net contracts signed
in fiscal 2008 and 2007, respectively. The value of net contracts signed in our first quarter of
fiscal 2011 was 5.2% higher than the first quarter of fiscal 2010. The slowdown, which we believe
started with a decline in consumer confidence, an overall softening of demand for new homes and an
oversupply of homes available for sale, had been exacerbated by, among other things, a decline in
the overall economy, increased unemployment, the increased number of vacant homes, fear of job
loss, a decline in home prices and the resulting reduction in home equity, the large number of
homes that are vacant and homes that are or will be available due to foreclosures, the inability of
some of our home buyers or some prospective buyers of their homes to sell their current home, and
the direct and indirect impact of the turmoil in the mortgage loan market.
We believe many of our markets and housing in general have reached bottom; however, we expect that
there may be more periods of volatility in the future. We believe that, once the unemployment rate
declines and confidence improves, pent-up demand will be released and, gradually, more buyers will
enter the market. We believe that the key to a full recovery in our business depends on these
factors as well as a sustained stabilization of financial markets and home prices. Although many of
our markets remain weak and home buyers are still wary, the metro Washington, DC to metro Boston
corridor, especially our metro New York City urban projects, as well as our Texas communities
appear to be improving. Although we believe our customers recognize that this is perhaps the best
time to buy in many years, the market is not generating the positive momentum that creates urgency
among buyers.
We continue to seek a balance between our short-term goal of selling homes in a tough market and
our long-term
goal of maximizing the value of our communities. We continue to believe that many of our
communities are in desirable locations that are difficult to replace and in markets where approvals
have been increasingly difficult to achieve. We believe that many of these communities have
substantial embedded value that may be realized in the future and that this value should not
necessarily be sacrificed in the current soft market.
We maintain relationships with a widely diversified group of mortgage financial institutions, many
of which are among the largest and, we believe, most reliable in the industry. We believe that
regional and community banks continue to recognize the long-term value in creating relationships
with high-quality, affluent customers such as our home buyers, and these banks continue to provide
such customers with financing.
29
We believe that our home buyers generally are, and should continue to be, better able to secure
mortgages due to
their typically lower loan-to-value ratios and attractive credit profiles as compared to the
average home buyer. Nevertheless, in recent years, tightened credit standards have shrunken the
pool of potential home buyers and
hindered accessibility of or eliminated certain loan products previously available to our home
buyers. Our home buyers continue to face stricter mortgage underwriting guidelines, higher down
payment requirements and narrower appraisal guidelines than in the past. While the range of
mortgage product available to a potential home buyer is not what it was in 2005 2007, it has
improved in the past few quarters. Some of our home buyers continue to find it more difficult to
sell their existing homes as their prospective buyers of such homes may face difficulties obtaining
a mortgage. In addition, other potential buyers may have little or negative equity in their
existing homes and are not able or willing to purchase a larger or more expensive home.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which was signed into law on July
21, 2010, provides for a number of new requirements relating to residential mortgage lending
practices, many of which are subject to further rule making. These include, among others, minimum
standards for mortgages and lender practices in making mortgages, limitations on certain fees,
prohibition of certain tying arrangements, and remedies for borrowers in foreclosure proceedings in
the event of lender violations of fee limitations and minimum standards. The ultimate effect of
such provisions on lending institutions, including our mortgage subsidiary, will depend on the
rules that are ultimately promulgated.
There has been significant media attention given to mortgage put-backs, a practice by which a buyer
of a mortgage loan tries to recoup losses from the loan originator. We do not believe this is a
material issue for our mortgage subsidiary. Of the approximately 12,800 loans sold by our mortgage
subsidiary since November 1, 2004, only 25 have been the subject of either indemnification payments
or take-backs. We believe that this is due to (i) our typical home buyers financial position and
sophistication, (ii) on average, our home buyers who use mortgage financing to purchase a home pays
approximately 30% of the purchase price in cash, (iii) our general practice of not originating
certain loan types such as option adjustable rate mortgages and down payment assistance products,
and our origination of very few sub-prime and high loan-to-value, no documentation loans, and (iv)
our elimination of early payment default provisions from each of our agreements with our mortgage
investors several years ago. Investors must demonstrate a material error on our part in issuing the
mortgage or consumer fraud must exist in order for us to suffer a loss. In addition, the amount of
any such loss would be reduced by any proceeds received on the disposition of the collateral
associated with the mortgage.
Based on our experience during prior downturns in the housing industry, we believe that attractive
land acquisition opportunities may arise in difficult times for those builders that have the
financial strength to take advantage of them. In the current challenging environment, we believe
our strong balance sheet, liquidity, access to capital, broad geographic presence, diversified
product line, experienced personnel and national brand name all position us well for such
opportunities now and in the future. In the three-month period ended January 31, 2011, we entered
into contracts to acquire approximately 1,429 home sites (net of options terminated).
We continue to see reduced competition from the small and mid-sized private builders that had been
our primary competitors in the luxury market. We believe that many of these builders are no longer
in business and that access by the surviving private builders to capital is already severely
constrained. We envision that there will be fewer and more selective lenders serving our industry
when the market rebounds and that those lenders likely will gravitate to the homebuilding companies
that offer them the greatest security, the strongest balance sheets and the broadest array of
potential business opportunities. We believe that this reduced competition, combined with
attractive long-term demographics, will reward those well-capitalized builders that can persevere
through the current challenging environment.
Notwithstanding the current market conditions, we believe that geographic and product
diversification, access to lower-cost capital, and strong demographics have in the past and will in
the future, as market conditions improve over time, benefit those builders that can control land
and persevere through the increasingly difficult regulatory
approval process. We believe that these factors favor the large publicly traded homebuilding
companies with the capital and expertise to control home sites and gain market share. We believe
that over the past five years, many builders and land developers reduced the number of home sites
that were taken through the approval process. The
process continues to be difficult and lengthy, and the political pressure from no-growth proponents
continues to increase. We believe our expertise in taking land through the approval process and our
already approved land positions will allow us to grow in the years to come, as market conditions
improve.
30
Because of the length of time that it takes to obtain the necessary approvals on a property,
complete the land improvements on it, and deliver a home after a home buyer signs an agreement of
sale, we are subject to many risks. We attempt to reduce certain risks by controlling land for
future development through options (also referred to herein as land purchase contracts or option
and purchase agreements), thus allowing the necessary governmental approvals to be obtained before
acquiring title to the land; generally commencing construction of a
detached home only after executing an agreement of sale and receiving a substantial down payment
from the buyer; and using subcontractors to perform home construction and land development work on
a fixed-price basis. Our risk reduction strategy of generally not commencing the construction of a
home until we have an agreement of sale with a buyer was effective prior to this current downturn
in the housing market, but, due to the number of cancellations of agreements of sale that we had
during the current downturn, many of which were for homes on which we had commenced construction,
the number of homes under construction in detached single-family communities for which we did not
have an agreement of sale increased from our historical levels. With our contract cancellation
rates returning to more normal levels and the sale of these units, we have reduced the number of
unsold units to more historical levels. In addition, over the past several years, the number of our
attached-home communities has grown, resulting in an increase in the number of unsold units under
construction.
In response to the decline in market conditions over the past several years, we have re-evaluated
and renegotiated or cancelled many of our land purchase contracts. In addition, we have sold, and
may continue to sell, certain parcels of land that we have identified as non-strategic. As a
result, we reduced our land position from a high of approximately 91,200 home sites at April 30,
2006 to approximately 35,700 home sites at January 31, 2011.
We continue to position ourselves for this recovery through the opportunistic and, we believe,
prudent purchase of land and the continued growth of our community count. We believe we have a
strong balance sheet and the liquidity needed to support our growth. We believe we are
well-positioned to continue to take advantage of attractive land and other opportunities arising
from current market conditions. Based on our belief that the housing market has bottomed, the
increased attractiveness of land available for purchase and the revival of demand in certain areas,
we have begun to increase our land positions. During the three-month period ended January 31, 2011,
we acquired control of 1,429 home sites (net of options terminated) and during fiscal 2010, we
acquired control of approximately 5,600 home sites (net of options terminated). At January 31,
2011, we controlled approximately 35,700 home sites, as compared to approximately 34,900 home sites
at October 31, 2010 and 31,900 home sites at October 31, 2009. Of the 35,700 home sites controlled
at January 31, 2011, we owned approximately 30,750. Of these 30,750 home sites, significant
improvements were completed on approximately 10,800 of them. At January 31, 2011, we were selling
from 200 communities, compared to 195 communities at October 31, 2010 and 200 communities at
October 31, 2009. For the first time in four years, our community count has grown quarter-over
quarter. We expect to be selling from 215 to 225 communities at October 31, 2011. In addition, at
January 31, 2011, we had 48 communities that were temporarily closed due to market conditions, of
which we expect to reopen approximately 13 prior to January 31, 2012.
We continue to look for other distressed real estate opportunities through Gibraltar Capital and
Asset Management LLC (Gibraltar), which in June 2010 partnered on the purchase of a $1.7 billion
face value FDIC portfolio of former Amtrust Bank assets. Gibraltar continues to selectively review
a steady flow of new opportunities, including FDIC and bank portfolios and other distressed real
estate investments.
CONTRACTS AND BACKLOG
The aggregate value of gross sales contracts signed increased 4.1% in the three-month period ended
January 31, 2011, as compared to the three-month period ended January 31, 2010. The value of gross
sales contracts signed was $325.9 million (581 homes) and $313.2 million (564 homes) in the
three-month periods ended January 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The increase in the aggregate
value of gross contracts signed in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period,
was the result of a 3.0% increase in the number of gross contracts signed, and a 1.0% increase in
the average value of each contract signed.
The aggregate value of net contracts signed increased 5.2% in the three-month period ended January
31, 2011, as compared to the three-month period ended January 31, 2010. The value of net contracts
signed was $307.2 million (548 homes) in the fiscal 2011 period and $292.1 million (526 homes) in
the fiscal 2010 period. The increase in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010
period, was the result of a 4.2% increase in the number of net contracts signed, and a 1.0%
increase in the average value of each contract signed.
In the three-month period ended January 31, 2011, home buyers cancelled $18.7 million (33 homes) of
signed contracts, representing 5.7% of both the gross value and gross number of contracts signed.
In the three-month period ended January 31, 2010, home buyers cancelled $21.1 million (38 homes) of
signed contracts, representing 6.7% both of the gross value and gross number of contracts signed.
The average value of the contracts cancelled in the three-month period of fiscal 2011 increased
approximately 1.9%, as compared to the three-month period of fiscal 2010.
31
The value of our backlog at January 31, 2011 of $825.2 million (1,472 homes) decreased 1.8%, as
compared to our backlog at January 31, 2010 of $840.2 million (1,461 homes). Backlog consists of
homes under contract but not yet delivered to our home buyers. Our backlog at October 31, 2010 and
2009 was $852.1 million (1,494 homes) and $874.8 million (1,531 homes), respectively. The decrease
in the value of backlog at January 31, 2011, as compared to the backlog at January 31, 2010, was
primarily attributable to the decrease in the value of our backlog at October 31, 2010, as compared
to our backlog at October 31, 2009, the increased aggregate value of our deliveries in the fiscal
2011 period, as compared to the aggregate value of deliveries in the fiscal 2010 period, offset, in
part, by the increase in the aggregate value of net contracts signed in the three-month period
ended January 31, 2011, as compared to the three-month period ended January 31, 2010.
For more information regarding revenues, gross contracts signed, contract cancellations, net
contracts signed and sales incentives provided on units delivered by geographic segment, see
Geographic Segments in this MD&A.
CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES
We believe the following critical accounting policies reflect the more significant judgments and
estimates used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.
Inventory
Inventory is stated at cost unless an impairment exists, in which case it is written down to fair
value in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). In addition to
direct land acquisition, land development and home construction costs, costs also include interest,
real estate taxes and direct overhead related to development and construction, which are
capitalized to inventory during periods beginning with the commencement of development and ending
with the completion of construction. For those communities that have been temporarily closed, no
additional capitalized interest is allocated to the communitys inventory until it re-opens, and
other carrying costs are expensed as incurred. Once a parcel of land has been approved for
development and we open the community, it can typically take four or more years to fully develop,
sell and deliver all the homes. Longer or shorter time periods are possible depending on the number
of home sites in a community and the sales and delivery pace of the homes in a community. Our
master planned communities, consisting of several smaller communities, may take up to ten years or
more to complete. Because our inventory is considered a long-lived asset under GAAP, we are
required to regularly review the carrying value of each of our communities and write down the value
of those communities for which we believe the values have been impaired.
Current Communities: When the profitability of a current community deteriorates, the sales pace
declines
significantly or some other factor indicates a possible impairment in the recoverability of the
asset, the asset is reviewed for impairment by comparing the estimated future undiscounted cash
flow for the community to its carrying value. If the estimated future undiscounted cash flow is
less than the communitys carrying value, the carrying value is written down to its estimated fair
value. Estimated fair value is primarily determined by discounting the estimated future cash flow
of each community. The impairment is charged to cost of revenues in the period in which the
impairment is determined. In estimating the future undiscounted cash flow of a community, we
use various estimates such as: (a) the expected sales pace in a community, based upon general
economic conditions
that will have a short-term or long-term impact on the market in which the community is located and
on competition within the market, including the number of home sites available and pricing and
incentives being offered in other communities owned by us or by other builders; (b) the expected
sales prices and sales incentives to be offered in a community; (c) costs expended to date and
expected to be incurred in the future, including, but not limited to, land and land development
costs, home construction costs, interest costs and overhead costs; (d) alternative product
offerings that may be offered in a community that will have an impact on sales pace, sales price,
building cost or the number of homes that can be built in a particular community; and (e)
alternative uses for the property, such as the possibility of a sale of the entire community to
another builder or the sale of individual home sites.
Future Communities: We evaluate all land held for future communities or future sections of current
communities, whether owned or optioned, to determine whether or not we expect to proceed with the
development of the land as originally contemplated. This evaluation encompasses the same types of
estimates used for current communities described above, as well as an evaluation of the regulatory
environment in which the land is located and the estimated probability of obtaining the necessary
approvals, the estimated time and cost it will take to obtain those approvals and the possible
concessions that will be required to be given in order to obtain them. Concessions may include cash
payments to fund improvements to public places such as parks and streets, dedication of a portion
of the property for use by the public or as open space or a reduction in the density or size of the
homes to be built. Based upon this review, we decide (a) as to land under contract to be purchased,
whether the contract will likely be
terminated or renegotiated, and (b) as to land we own, whether the land will likely be developed as
contemplated or in an alternative manner, or should be sold. We then further determine whether
costs that have been capitalized to the community are recoverable or should be written off. The
write-off is charged to cost of revenues in the period in which the need for the write-off is
determined.
32
The estimates used in the determination of the estimated cash flows and fair value of both current
and future communities are based on factors known to us at the time such estimates are made and our
expectations of future operations and economic conditions. Should the estimates or expectations
used in determining estimated fair value deteriorate in the future, we may be required to recognize
additional impairment charges and write-offs related to current and future communities.
The table below provides, for the periods indicated, the number of operating communities that we
tested for potential impairment, the number of operating communities in which we recognized
impairment charges, the amount of impairment charges recognized, and, as of the end of the period
indicated, the fair value of those communities, net of impairment charges ($ amounts in millions).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Impaired communities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
communities, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
net of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
communities |
|
|
Number of |
|
|
impairment |
|
|
Impairment |
|
Three months ended: |
|
tested |
|
|
communities |
|
|
charges |
|
|
charges |
|
Fiscal 2011: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 31 |
|
|
143 |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
$ |
56.1 |
|
|
$ |
5.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fiscal 2010: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
January 31 |
|
|
260 |
|
|
|
14 |
|
|
$ |
60.5 |
|
|
$ |
22.8 |
|
April 30 |
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
$ |
53.6 |
|
|
|
15.0 |
|
July 31 |
|
|
155 |
|
|
|
7 |
|
|
$ |
21.5 |
|
|
|
6.6 |
|
October 31 |
|
|
144 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
$ |
39.2 |
|
|
|
9.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
53.5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable Interest Entities: We have a significant number of land purchase contracts and several
investments in unconsolidated entities which we evaluate in accordance with ASC 810,
Consolidation (ASC 810). We analyze our land purchase contracts and the unconsolidated entities
in which we have an investment to determine whether the land sellers and unconsolidated entities
are variable interest entities (VIEs) and, if so, whether we are the primary beneficiary. If we are determined to be the primary
beneficiary of the VIE, we must consolidate it. A VIE is an entity with insufficient equity
investment or in which the equity investors lack some of the characteristics of a controlling
financial interest. In determining whether it is the primary beneficiary, we consider, among other
things, whether we have the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly
impact the entitys economic performance, including, but not limited to, determining or limiting
the scope or purpose of the VIE, selling or transferring property owned or controlled by the VIE,
or arranging financing for the VIE. We also consider whether we have the obligation to absorb
losses of the VIE or the right to receive benefits from the VIE. At January 31, 2011, the
Company had determined that 35 land purchase contracts, with an aggregate purchase price of $303.8
million, on which it had made aggregate deposits totaling $12.9 million, were VIEs, and that it was
not the primary beneficiary of any VIE related to its land purchase contracts.
OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS
The trends, uncertainties or other factors that have negatively impacted our business and the
industry in general and which are discussed in the Overview section of this MD&A have also impacted
the unconsolidated entities in which we have investments. In accordance with ASC 323, on a
quarterly basis, we evaluate each of our investments in unconsolidated entities for indicators for
impairment. A series of operating losses of an investee, the inability to recover our invested
capital, or other factors may indicate that a loss in value of the Companys investment in the
unconsolidated entity has occurred. If a loss exists, we further review to determine if the loss is
other than temporary, in which case, we write down the investment to its fair value. The evaluation
of the Companys investment in unconsolidated entities entails a detailed cash flow analysis using
many estimates including but not limited to expected sales pace, expected sales prices, expected
incentives, costs incurred and anticipated, sufficiency of financing and capital, competition, and
market conditions, in order to determine projected future distributions. If a joint venture has its
own loans or is principally a joint venture to hold an option, such impairment may result in
the majority or all of our investment being impaired. See Critical Accounting Policies
Inventory in this MD&A for more detailed disclosure on our evaluation of inventory. During the
fiscal 2011 period, based upon our evaluation of the fair value of our investments in
unconsolidated entities, we determined, due to the continued deterioration of the market in which
one of our joint ventures operates, that there was an other than temporary impairment of our
investment. Based on this determination, we recognized a $20 million impairment charge against the
carrying value of this investment.
33
We have investments in and advances to various unconsolidated entities including Toll Brothers
Realty Trust (Trust) and Toll Brothers Realty Trust II (Trust II). At January 31, 2011, we had
investments in and advances to these entities, net of impairment charges recognized, of $157.8
million, and were committed to invest or advance $11.8 million to these entities if they require
additional funding.
In connection with certain land development joint ventures to which we are a party, we executed
completion guarantees and conditional repayment guarantees. The obligations under the completion
guarantees and conditional repayment guarantees are several and not joint, and are limited to our
pro-rata share of the loan obligations of the respective joint ventures. At January 31, 2011, the
maximum amount of the completion guarantees, conditional repayment guarantees and completion of
improvements (net of amounts that we have accrued and reflecting a proposed settlement of
litigation related to one of the joint ventures) is estimated to be approximately $38.4 million, if
any liability is determined to be due thereunder.
Our investments in these entities are accounted for using the equity method.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The following table sets forth, for the three-month periods ended January 31, 2011 and 2010, a
comparison of certain statement of operations items ($ in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended January 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
$ |
|
|
%* |
|
|
$ |
|
|
%* |
|
Revenues |
|
|
334.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
326.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cost of revenues |
|
|
282.0 |
|
|
|
84.4 |
|
|
|
317.5 |
|
|
|
97.2 |
|
Selling, general and administrative |
|
|
61.3 |
|
|
|
18.4 |
|
|
|
67.3 |
|
|
|
20.6 |
|
Interest expense |
|
|
1.1 |
|
|
|
0.3 |
|
|
|
7.3 |
|
|
|
2.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
344.3 |
|
|
|
103.1 |
|
|
|
392.0 |
|
|
|
120.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss from operations |
|
|
(10.2 |
) |
|
|
(3.1 |
) |
|
|
(65.3 |
) |
|
|
(20.0 |
) |
Other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Loss) income from unconsolidated entities |
|
|
(11.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
0.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
Interest and other |
|
|
4.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loss before income tax benefit |
|
|
(17.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(56.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
Income tax benefit |
|
|
(20.5 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(16.0 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income (loss) |
|
|
3.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(40.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
Percent of revenues |
|
Note: |
|
Due to rounding, amounts may not add. |
In the three-month period ended January 31, 2011, we recognized $334.1 million of revenues and net
income of $3.4 million, as compared to $326.7 million of revenues and a net loss of $40.8 million
in the three-month period ended January 31, 2010. In the three-month period ended January 31, 2011,
we recognized inventory impairments and write-offs of $5.1 million, as compared to $33.4 million of
inventory impairments and write-offs in the three-month period ended January 31, 2010. In addition,
in the three months ended January 31, 2011, we recognized $20.0 million of impairment charges
related to our investments in unconsolidated entities.
34
REVENUES AND COST OF REVENUES
Revenues for the three months ended January 31, 2011, were higher than those for the comparable
period of fiscal 2010 by approximately $7.4 million, or 2.3%. This increase was attributable to a
6.9% increase in the average price of the homes delivered, offset, in part, by a 4.4% decrease in
the number of homes delivered. The decrease in the number of homes delivered in the three-month
period ended January 31, 2011 was primarily due to a 2.4% decrease in the number of homes in backlog
at October 31, 2010, as compared to October 31, 2009. The 6.9% increase in the average price of the
homes delivered in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared the fiscal 2010 period, was due to a shift
in product mix to higher priced product or more expensive geographic areas and a decrease in
incentives given on homes closed in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period.
Cost of revenues as a percentage of revenues was 84.4% in the three-month period ended January 31,
2011, as compared to 97.2% in the three-month period ended January 31, 2010. In the three-month
periods ended January 31, 2011 and 2010, we recognized inventory impairment charges and write-offs
of $5.1 million and $33.4 million, respectively. Cost of revenues as a percentage of revenues,
excluding impairments, was 82.9% of revenues in the three-month period ended January 31, 2011, as
compared to 87.0% in the fiscal 2010 period. The decrease in cost of revenues, excluding inventory
impairment charges, as a percentage of revenue in fiscal 2011, as compared to fiscal 2010, was due
primarily to lower costs on the homes delivered in the fiscal 2011 period than those delivered in
the fiscal 2010 period. The lower costs were due to the delivery of fewer homes directly from
inventory (quick-delivery homes) in fiscal 2011, as compared to fiscal 2010, as our supply of
such homes has dwindled, and to reduced sales incentives in general on the homes delivered in
fiscal 2011, as compared to fiscal 2010. Generally, we give higher sales incentives on
quick-delivery homes than our standard contract and build homes (to be built homes). In addition,
reduced costs were realized in fiscal 2011 because fewer homes were delivered from certain higher
cost communities in fiscal 2011, as compared to fiscal 2010, as these communities delivered their
final homes (closed-out) and from the benefits from cost savings of our new centralized
purchasing initiatives. In the three-month periods ended
January 31, 2011 and 2010, interest cost as
a percentage of revenues was 5.4% and 5.3%, respectively.
SELLING, GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES (SG&A)
SG&A expense decreased by $6.0 million, or 8.9%, in the three-month period ended January 31, 2011,
as compared to the three-month period ended January 31, 2010. As a percentage of revenues, SG&A was
18.4% in the three-month period ended January 31, 2011, as compared to 20.6% in the fiscal 2010
period. The reduction in SG&A expense in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010
period, was due primarily from an insurance claim recovery and the reversal of previously accrued
costs due to a change in estimate.
INTEREST EXPENSE
Interest incurred on average homebuilding indebtedness in excess of average qualified inventory is
charged directly to the statement of operations in the period incurred. Interest expensed directly
to the statement of operations in the three-month periods ended
January 31, 2011 and 2010 was $1.1
million and $7.3 million, respectively. The decrease in the amount of interest expensed directly is
due to a higher amount of qualified inventory and a lower amount of debt in the fiscal 2011 period,
as compared to the fiscal 2010 period
INCOME (LOSS) FROM UNCONSOLIDATED ENTITIES
We are a participant in several joint ventures and in the Trust and Trust II. We recognize our
proportionate share of the earnings and losses from these entities. The trends, uncertainties or
other factors that have negatively impacted our business and the industry in general and which are
discussed in the Overview section of this MD&A have also impacted the unconsolidated entities in
which we have investments. Most of our joint ventures are land development projects or
high-rise/mid-rise construction projects and do not generate revenues and earnings for a number of
years during the development of the property. Once development is complete, the joint ventures will
generally, over a relatively short period of time, generate revenues and earnings until all the
assets of the entity are sold. Because there is not a steady flow of revenues and earnings from
these entities, the earnings recognized from these entities will vary significantly from quarter to
quarter and year to year.
In the three-month period ended January 31, 2011, we recognized $11.0 million of loss from
unconsolidated entities, as compared to a $0.4 million of income in the fiscal 2010 period. The
loss in the fiscal 2011 period included a $20.0 million impairment charge that we recognized on our
investments in unconsolidated entities. No impairment charge was recognized in the fiscal 2010
period. See Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements in this MD&A for
information related to this impairment charge. The increase in income from unconsolidated entities
in the fiscal 2011 period, excluding the $20.0 million impairment charge, was due principally to
income generated from two of our high-rise construction ventures which commenced delivery of units
in the second and third quarter of fiscal 2010.
35
INTEREST AND OTHER INCOME
For the three months ended January 31, 2011 and 2010, interest and other income was $4.2 million
and $8.2 million, respectively. The decrease in interest and other income in the three-month period
ended January 31, 2011, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period, was primarily due to a decline in
the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period, of $4.2 million of retained customer
deposits, a decrease in income from ancillary businesses and management fee income, offset, in
part, by a gain on the sale of a commercial parcel of land.
LOSS BEFORE INCOME TAX BENEFIT
For the three-month period ended January 31, 2011, we reported a loss before income tax benefit of
$17.0 million, as compared to a loss before income tax benefit of $56.8 million in the three-month
period ended January 31, 2010.
INCOME TAX (BENEFIT) PROVISION
We recognized a $20.5 million tax benefit in the first quarter of fiscal 2011 due primarily to the
reversal of $18.0 million of previously accrued taxes on uncertain tax positions that were resolved
during the period, and the reversal of $2.3 million of state tax liabilities (net of federal tax
provision) due to the settlement of a state income tax audit at a lower amount than provided. In
the first quarter of fiscal 2010, the Company recognized a tax benefit of $16.0 million due
primarily to the recognition of $21.7 million related to estimated tax losses in the period that it
expects to carryback against prior year taxable income, offset, in part, by the recognition of $3.4
million of net new deferred tax valuation allowances and the recognition of $2.4 million of
interest on unresolved tax positions.
CAPITAL RESOURCES AND LIQUIDITY
Funding for our business has been provided principally by cash flow from operating activities
before inventory additions, unsecured bank borrowings and the public debt and equity markets. Prior
to fiscal 2008, we used our cash flow from operating activities before inventory additions, bank
borrowings and the proceeds of public debt and equity offerings, to acquire additional land for new
communities, fund additional expenditures for land development, fund construction costs needed to
meet the requirements of our backlog, invest in unconsolidated entities, purchase our stock and
repay debt.
At January 31, 2011, we had $1.10 billion of cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities on
hand, a decline of $135.9 million from October 31, 2010. Cash used in operating activities during
the three-month period ended January 31, 2011 was $77.2 million. Cash used in operating activities
during the fiscal 2011 period was primarily used to fund the purchase of inventory and reduce
accounts payable and accrued liabilities, and was offset, in part, by the sale of mortgage loans,
net of mortgage originations. We used $14.7 million of cash in our investing activities in the
three-month period ended January 31, 2011, primarily for investments in marketable securities, net
of sales of marketable securities. We also used $60.6 million of cash in financing activities in
the three-month period ended January 31, 2011, primarily for the repayment of $53.0 million of our
mortgage warehouse loan, net of new borrowings under it, and the repayment of other loans payable.
At January 31, 2010, we had $1.75 billion of cash and cash equivalents and marketable securities on
hand, a decline of $154.4 million from October 31, 2009. Cash used in operating activities during
the three-month period ended January 31, 2010 was $72.5 million. Cash used in operating activities
during the fiscal 2010 period was primarily used to fund our loss from operations, to purchase
inventory and to pay accounts payable and accrued liabilities, and was offset, in part, by the sale
of mortgage loans net of mortgage originations. We used $90.0 million of cash in our investing
activities in the three-month period ended January 31, 2010, primarily for investments in
marketable securities and for investments in our unconsolidated entities. We also used $77.3
million of cash in financing activities in the three-month period ended January 31, 2010,
principally for the repayment and redemption of debt (primarily our senior subordinated notes, our
mortgage company warehouse loan and other loans payable).
36
At January 31, 2011, the aggregate purchase price of land parcels under option and purchase
agreements was approximately $557.0 million (including $136.0 million of land to be acquired from
joint ventures in which we have invested). Of the $557.0 million of land purchase commitments, we
had paid or deposited $52.7 million, we will
receive a credit for prior investments in joint ventures of approximately $37.3 million and, if we
acquire all of these land parcels, we will be required to pay $467.0 million. Of the $467.0 million
we would be required to pay, we recorded $58.4 million of this amount in accrued expenses at
January 31, 2011. The purchases of these land parcels are scheduled over the next several years. We
have additional land parcels under option that have been excluded from the aforementioned aggregate
purchase amounts since we do not believe that we will complete the purchase of these land parcels
and no additional funds will be required from us to terminate these contracts.
In general, our cash flow from operating activities assumes that, as each home is delivered, we
will purchase a home site to replace it. Because we own several years supply of home sites, we do
not need to buy home sites immediately to replace those which we deliver. In addition, we generally
do not begin construction of our single-family detached homes until we have a signed contract with
the home buyer, although in the past several years, due to the high cancellation rate of customer
contracts and the increase in the number of attached-home communities from which we were operating
(all of the units of which are generally not sold prior to the commencement of construction), the
number of speculative homes in our inventory increased significantly. Should our business decline
from present levels, we believe that our inventory levels would decrease as we complete and deliver
the homes under construction but do not commence construction of as many new homes, not incur
additional costs to improve land we already own and as we sell and deliver the speculative homes
that are currently in inventory, all of which should result in additional cash flow from
operations. In addition, we might curtail our acquisition of additional land which would further
reduce our inventory levels and cash needs. We have begun to see land being offered at prices that
we believe are attractive based on current market conditions, and have entered into several
contracts to acquire land in the last several months. During the three-month period ended January
31, 2011, we acquired control of 1,429 lots (net of lot options terminated). At January 31, 2011,
we owned or controlled through options approximately 35,700 home sites, as compared to
approximately 31,700 at January 31, 2010, 34,900 at October 31, 2010, and approximately 91,200 at
April 30, 2006, our peak in terms of home sites owned or controlled through options. Of the 35,700
home sites owned or controlled through options at January 31, 2011, we owned approximately 30,750;
significant improvements were completed on approximately 10,800 of them.
In October 2010, we entered into an $885 million revolving credit facility with 12 banks, which
extends to October 2014. At January 31, 2011, we had no outstanding borrowings under the credit
facility but had outstanding letters of credit of approximately $87.5 million. At January 31, 2011,
interest would have been payable on borrowings under our credit facility at 2.50% (subject to
adjustment based upon our debt rating and leverage ratios) above the Eurodollar rate or at other
specified variable rates as selected by us from time to time. We are obligated to pay an undrawn
commitment fee of 0.50% (subject to adjustment based upon our debt rating and leverage ratios)
based on the average daily unused amount of the credit facility. Under the terms of the credit
facility, we are not permitted to allow our maximum leverage ratio (as defined in the credit
agreement) to exceed 1.75 to 1.00, and we are required to maintain a minimum tangible net worth (as
defined in the credit agreement) of approximately $1.89 billion at January 31, 2011. At
January 31, 2011, our leverage ratio was approximately 0.23 to 1.00, and our tangible net worth was
approximately $2.53 billion. Based upon the minimum tangible net worth requirement, our ability to
pay dividends and repurchase our common stock was limited to an aggregate amount of approximately
$647.3 million at January 31, 2011. In addition, at January 31, 2011, we had $45.8 million of letters
of credit outstanding with three banks which were not part of our new credit facility; these
letters of credit were collateralized by $45.8 million of cash deposits.
We believe that we will be able to continue to fund our current operations and meet our contractual
obligations through a combination of existing cash resources and other sources of credit. Due to
the deterioration of the credit markets and the uncertainties that exist in the economy and for
home builders in general, we cannot be certain that we will be able to replace existing financing
or find sources of additional financing in the future; moreover, if we are able to replace all or
some of such facilities, we may be subjected to more restrictive borrowing terms and conditions.
37
GEOGRAPHIC SEGMENTS
We operate in four geographic segments around the United States: the North, consisting of
Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and New York; the
Mid-Atlantic, consisting of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia; the
South, consisting of Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Texas; and the West,
consisting of Arizona, California, Colorado and Nevada.
The tables below summarize information related to revenues, gross contracts signed, contract
cancellations and net contracts signed provided on units delivered by geographic segment for the
three-month periods ended January 31, 2011 and 2010, and information related to backlog by
geographic segment at January 31, 2011 and 2010.
Revenues Three months ended January 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total number of contracts |
|
|
Total value of contracts |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
Units |
|
|
Units |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
North |
|
|
149 |
|
|
|
167 |
|
|
$ |
82.5 |
|
|
$ |
91.4 |
|
Mid-Atlantic |
|
|
179 |
|
|
|
192 |
|
|
|
103.8 |
|
|
|
101.1 |
|
South |
|
|
115 |
|
|
|
113 |
|
|
|
61.9 |
|
|
|
55.3 |
|
West |
|
|
127 |
|
|
|
124 |
|
|
|
85.9 |
|
|
|
78.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
570 |
|
|
|
596 |
|
|
$ |
334.1 |
|
|
$ |
326.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gross contracts signed Three months ended January 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total number of contracts |
|
|
Total value of contracts |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
Units |
|
|
Units |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
North |
|
|
148 |
|
|
|
148 |
|
|
$ |
82.5 |
|
|
$ |
77.6 |
|
Mid-Atlantic |
|
|
196 |
|
|
|
170 |
|
|
|
112.0 |
|
|
|
96.4 |
|
South |
|
|
133 |
|
|
|
126 |
|
|
|
73.9 |
|
|
|
62.1 |
|
West |
|
|
104 |
|
|
|
120 |
|
|
|
57.5 |
|
|
|
77.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
581 |
|
|
|
564 |
|
|
$ |
325.9 |
|
|
$ |
313.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contracts cancellations Three months ended January 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total number of contracts |
|
|
Total value of contracts |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
Units |
|
|
Units |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
North |
|
|
16 |
|
|
|
12 |
|
|
$ |
8.8 |
|
|
$ |
4.7 |
|
Mid-Atlantic |
|
|
6 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
3.2 |
|
|
|
6.8 |
|
South |
|
|
7 |
|
|
|
9 |
|
|
|
4.7 |
|
|
|
5.5 |
|
West |
|
|
4 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
2.0 |
|
|
|
4.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
|
38 |
|
|
$ |
18.7 |
|
|
$ |
21.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net contracts signed Three months ended January 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total number of contracts |
|
|
Total value of contracts |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
Units |
|
|
Units |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
North |
|
|
132 |
|
|
|
136 |
|
|
$ |
73.7 |
|
|
$ |
72.9 |
|
Mid-Atlantic |
|
|
190 |
|
|
|
161 |
|
|
|
108.8 |
|
|
|
89.6 |
|
South |
|
|
126 |
|
|
|
117 |
|
|
|
69.2 |
|
|
|
56.6 |
|
West |
|
|
100 |
|
|
|
112 |
|
|
|
55.5 |
|
|
|
73.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
548 |
|
|
|
526 |
|
|
$ |
307.2 |
|
|
$ |
292.1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
38
Contracts cancellations as a percentage of gross contracts signed Three months ended January 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total number of contracts |
|
|
Total value of contracts |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
North |
|
|
10.8 |
% |
|
|
8.1 |
% |
|
|
10.6 |
% |
|
|
6.1 |
% |
Mid-Atlantic |
|
|
3.1 |
% |
|
|
5.3 |
% |
|
|
2.9 |
% |
|
|
7.0 |
% |
South |
|
|
5.3 |
% |
|
|
7.1 |
% |
|
|
6.4 |
% |
|
|
8.9 |
% |
West |
|
|
3.8 |
% |
|
|
6.7 |
% |
|
|
3.5 |
% |
|
|
5.3 |
% |
Total |
|
|
5.7 |
% |
|
|
6.7 |
% |
|
|
5.7 |
% |
|
|
6.7 |
% |
Backlog at January 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total number of contracts |
|
|
Total value of contracts |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
|
Units |
|
|
Units |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
North |
|
|
504 |
|
|
|
519 |
|
|
$ |
250.6 |
|
|
$ |
265.1 |
|
Mid-Atlantic |
|
|
486 |
|
|
|
462 |
|
|
|
289.4 |
|
|
|
282.2 |
|
South |
|
|
307 |
|
|
|
286 |
|
|
|
166.9 |
|
|
|
149.2 |
|
West |
|
|
175 |
|
|
|
194 |
|
|
|
118.3 |
|
|
|
143.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,472 |
|
|
|
1,461 |
|
|
$ |
825.2 |
|
|
$ |
840.2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Backlog at October 31:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total number of contracts |
|
|
Total value of contracts |
|
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
2010 |
|
|
2009 |
|
|
|
Units |
|
|
Units |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
|
(In millions) |
|
North |
|
|
521 |
|
|
|
550 |
|
|
$ |
259.3 |
|
|
$ |
283.6 |
|
Mid-Atlantic |
|
|
475 |
|
|
|
493 |
|
|
|
284.4 |
|
|
|
293.6 |
|
South |
|
|
296 |
|
|
|
282 |
|
|
|
159.7 |
|
|
|
148.0 |
|
West |
|
|
202 |
|
|
|
206 |
|
|
|
148.7 |
|
|
|
149.6 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,494 |
|
|
|
1,531 |
|
|
$ |
852.1 |
|
|
$ |
874.8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Revenues and (Loss) Income Before Income Taxes:
The following table summarizes by geographic segments total revenues and (loss) income before
income taxes for the three-month periods ended January 31, 2011 and 2010 (amounts in millions):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended January 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
Revenue: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North |
|
$ |
82.5 |
|
|
$ |
91.4 |
|
Mid-Atlantic |
|
|
103.8 |
|
|
|
101.1 |
|
South |
|
|
61.9 |
|
|
|
55.3 |
|
West |
|
|
85.9 |
|
|
|
78.9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
334.1 |
|
|
$ |
326.7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Three months ended January 31, |
|
|
|
2011 |
|
|
2010 |
|
(Loss) income before income taxes: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
North |
|
$ |
7.1 |
|
|
$ |
(1.8 |
) |
Mid-Atlantic |
|
|
8.1 |
|
|
|
(5.1 |
) |
South |
|
|
(1.4 |
) |
|
|
(8.8 |
) |
West |
|
|
(15.2 |
) |
|
|
(11.4 |
) |
Corporate and other (a) |
|
|
(15.6 |
) |
|
|
(29.7 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
(17.0 |
) |
|
$ |
(56.8 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
Corporate and other is comprised principally of general corporate expenses such as the
Offices of the Chief
Executive Officer and President, and the corporate finance, accounting, audit, tax, human
resources, risk management, marketing and legal groups, directly expensed interest, offset in
part by interest income and income from our ancillary businesses. |
39
North
Revenues in the three months ended January 31, 2011 were lower than those for the comparable period
of fiscal 2010 by $8.9 million, or 9.8%. The decrease in revenues was attributable to a 10.8%
decrease in the number of homes delivered, offset, in part, by a 1.1% increase in the average price
of the homes delivered. The decrease in the number of homes delivered in the fiscal 2011 period,
as compared to the fiscal 2010 period, was primarily due to a decrease in the number of settlements
in the fiscal 2011 period at several of our high-rise communities as the result of lower backlog of
these communities at October 31, 2010, as compared to October 31, 2009. The increase in the average
price of the homes delivered in the three months ended January 31, 2011, as compared to the fiscal
2010 period, was primarily due to a shift in the number of homes delivered to more expensive
products and/or locations in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period.
The value of net contracts signed in the three months ended January 31, 2010 was $73.7
million, a 1.1% increase from the $72.9 million of net contracts signed during the three months
ended January 31, 2009. This increase was primarily due to a 4.2% increase in the average value of
each net contract, partially offset by a 2.9% decrease in the number of net contracts signed. The
increase in the average sales price of net contracts signed in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared
to the fiscal 2010 period, was primarily attributable to a shift in the number of contracts signed
to more expensive areas and/or products in the three-month period ended January 31, 2011, as
compared to the three-month period ended January 31, 2010. The decrease in the number of net
contracts signed in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period, was primarily
due to an increase in the number of contracts cancelled in the three-month period ended January 31,
2011, as compared to the three-month period ended January 31, 2010. In the fiscal 2011 period, we
had 16 cancellations, as compared to 12 cancellations in the fiscal 2010 period.
For the three months ended January 31, 2011, we reported income before income taxes of $7.1
million, as compared to a loss before income taxes of $1.8 million for the three months ended
January 31, 2010. The increase in income in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010
period, was primarily attributable to lower impairment charges and an increase in income from
unconsolidated entities of $7.2 million, offset, in part, by higher SG&A expenses and a decline in
retained customer deposits. In the three months ended January 31, 2011 and 2010, we recognized
inventory impairment charges of $1.4 million and $6.3 million, respectively. The increase in
income from unconsolidated entities in the fiscal 2011 period was due principally to income
generated from two of our high-rise construction joint ventures which commenced delivery of units
in the second and third quarter of fiscal 2010.
Mid-Atlantic
For the three months ended January 31, 2011, revenues were higher than those for the three months
ended January 31, 2010 by $2.8 million, or 2.7%, primarily due to a 10.2% increase in the average
sales price of the homes delivered, offset, in part, by a 6.8% decrease in the number of homes
delivered. The increase in the average price of the homes delivered in the fiscal 2011 period, as
compared to the fiscal 2010 period, was primarily related to a shift in the number of homes
delivered to more expensive products and/or locations. The decrease in the number of homes
delivered in the three-month period ended January 31, 2011, as compared to the three-month period
ended January 31, 2010, was primarily due to the decrease in the number of settlements in the
fiscal 2011 period at two of our mid-rise/high-rise communities located in Pennsylvania and
Maryland as a result of a decrease in net contracts signed at these communities.
The value of net contracts signed during the three-month period ended January 31, 2011 increased by
$19.1 million, or 21.3%, from the three-month period ended January 31, 2010. The increase was due
to an 18.0% increase in the number of net contracts signed and a 2.8% increase in the average value
of each net contract signed. The increase in the number of net contracts signed was due primarily
to an improvement in housing demand. The increase in the average value of each net contract signed
was primarily due to cancellations of higher priced homes in the fiscal 2010 period, as compared to
cancellations of lower priced homes in the fiscal 2011 period.
40
We reported income before income taxes for three-month period ended January 31, 2011 of $8.1
million, as compared to a $5.1 million loss before income taxes in the comparable period of fiscal
2010. The increase in the income before income taxes was primarily due to lower cost of revenues as
a percentage of revenues in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period. The
decrease in the cost of revenues as a percentage of revenues was primarily due to lower impairment
charges in the three months ended January 31, 2011, as compared to the
comparable period of fiscal 2010, and lower costs on the homes delivered in the fiscal 2011 period
than those delivered in the fiscal 2010 period. We recognized inventory impairment charges of $0.1
million and $10.6 million for the three months ended January 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The
lower costs were due to the delivery of fewer quick-delivery homes in the fiscal 2011 period, as
compared to the fiscal 2010 period, as our supply of such homes has dwindled, and to reduced sales
incentives in general on the homes delivered in fiscal 2011, as compared to fiscal 2010. Generally,
we give higher sales incentives on quick-delivery homes than our to be built homes. In addition,
reduced costs were realized in the fiscal 2011 period because fewer homes were delivered from
certain higher cost communities in fiscal 2011, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period, as these
communities closed-out.
South
Revenues in the three months ended January 31, 2011 were higher than those in the comparable period
of fiscal 2010 by $6.6 million, or 11.9%. This increase was attributable to a 9.9% increase in the
average price of the homes delivered and a 1.8% increase in the number of homes delivered. The
increase in the average price of the homes delivered in the three-month period ended January 31,
2011, as compared to the three-month period ended January 31, 2010, was primarily attributable to a
shift in the number of homes delivered, primarily in Florida and Texas, to more expensive areas
and/or products in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period.
For the three months ended January 31, 2011, the value of net contracts signed increased by $12.6
million, or 22.3%, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period. The increase was attributable to
increases of 7.7% and 13.6% in the number and average value of net contracts signed, respectively.
The increase in the number of net contracts signed in the three-month period ended January 31,
2011, as compared to the three-month period ended January 31, 2010, was primarily due to an
increase in the number of selling communities in the fiscal 2011 period as compared to the fiscal
2010 period. The increase in the average sales price of net contracts signed was primarily due to a
shift in the number of contracts signed to more expensive areas and/or products in the fiscal 2011
period, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period.
For the three months ended January 31, 2011 and 2010, we reported losses before income taxes of
$1.4 million and $8.8 million, respectively. The decline in the loss before income taxes was
primarily due to lower cost of revenues as a percentage of revenues in the 2011 period, as compared
to the fiscal 2010 period. Cost of revenues as a percentage of revenues was 82.4% in the
three-month period ended January 31, 2011, as compared to 94.6% in the three-month period ended
January 31, 2010. In the three-month periods ended January 31, 2011 and 2010, we recognized
inventory impairment charges and write-offs of $0.3 million and $5.9 million, respectively. Cost of
revenues as a percentage of revenues, excluding impairments, was 81.9% of revenues in the
three-month period ended January 31, 2011, as compared to 84.0% in the fiscal 2010 period. The
decrease in cost of revenues, excluding inventory impairment charges, as a percentage of revenue in
the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period, was due primarily to lower costs on
the homes delivered in the fiscal 2011 period than those delivered in the fiscal 2010 period. The
lower costs were due to the delivery of fewer quick-delivery homes in the fiscal 2011 period, as
compared to the fiscal 2010 period, as our supply of such homes has dwindled, and to reduced sales
incentives in general on the homes delivered in fiscal 2011, as compared to fiscal 2010. Generally,
we give higher sales incentives on quick-delivery homes than our to be built homes. In addition,
reduced costs were realized in fiscal 2011 because fewer homes were delivered from certain higher
cost communities in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period, as these
communities closed-out.
West
Revenues in the three-month period ended January 31, 2011 were higher than those in the three-month
period ended January 31, 2010 by $7.0 million, or 8.9%. The increase in revenues was attributable
to a 6.3% increase in the average sales price of the homes delivered and a 2.4% increase in the
number of homes delivered. The increase in the average price of the homes delivered was primarily
due to a shift in the number of homes delivered to more expensive products and/or locations,
primarily in California, in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period.
Excluding California, the average sales price of homes delivered declined by 8.2% primarily
attributable to a shift in the number of homes delivered to less expensive areas, and/or products primarily in Nevada, in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period.
The value of net contracts signed during the three months ended January 31, 2011 decreased $17.5
million, or 23.9%, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period. This decrease was due to a 10.7% decrease
in the number of net contracts signed and a 14.8% decrease in the average value of each net
contract signed. The decrease in the number of net contracts signed was due to a 10% decline in the
number of selling communities in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period. The
decrease in the average sales price of net contracts signed was primarily due to a shift in the
number of contracts signed to less expensive areas and/or products in the fiscal 2011 period, as
compared to the fiscal 2010 period.
41
We reported losses before income taxes for the three-month periods ended January 31, 2011 and 2010,
of $15.2 million and $11.4 million, respectively. The increase in the loss before income taxes was
primarily due to a $20.0 million impairment charge that we recognized on one of our investments in
unconsolidated entities offset, in part, by lower cost of revenues as a percentage of revenues and
lower SG&A expenses in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period. Cost of
revenues as a percentage of revenues was 78.4% in the three-month period ended January 31, 2011, as
compared to 95.5% in the three-month period ended January 31, 2010. In the three-month periods
ended January 31, 2011 and 2010, we recognized inventory impairment charges and write-offs of $3.3
million and $10.6 million, respectively. Cost of revenues as a percentage of revenues, excluding
impairments, was 74.6% of revenues in the three-month period ended January 31, 2011, as compared to
82.1% in the fiscal 2010 period. The decrease in cost of revenues, excluding inventory impairment
charges, as a percentage of revenue in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010
period, was due primarily to lower costs on the homes delivered in the fiscal 2011 period than
those delivered in the fiscal 2010 period. The lower costs were due to the delivery of fewer
quick-delivery homes in the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period, as our
supply of such homes has dwindled, and to reduced sales incentives in general on the homes
delivered in fiscal 2011, as compared to fiscal 2010. Generally, we give higher sales incentives on
quick-delivery homes than our to be built homes. In addition, reduced costs were realized in fiscal
2011 because fewer homes were delivered from certain higher cost communities in the fiscal 2011
period, as compared the fiscal 2010 period, as these communities closed-out.
Other
For the three months ended January 31, 2011 and 2010, other loss before income taxes was $15.6
million and $29.7 million, respectively. The decrease in the loss was primarily due a decrease of
$6.1 million of interest directly expensed and lower unallocated SG&A expenses of $6.8 million, in
the fiscal 2011 period, as compared to the fiscal 2010 period. The reduction in unallocated SG&A
expense in the three months ended January 31, 2011, as compared to the three months ended January
31, 2010, was primarily due to an insurance claim recovery and the reversal of previously accrued
costs due to a change in accounting estimates.
|
|
|
ITEM 3. |
|
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK |
We are exposed to market risk primarily due to fluctuations in interest rates. We utilize both
fixed-rate and variable-rate debt. For fixed-rate debt, changes in interest rates generally affect
the fair market value of the debt instrument, but not our earnings or cash flow. Conversely, for
variable-rate debt, changes in interest rates generally do not impact the fair market value of the
debt instrument, but do affect our earnings and cash flow. We do not have the obligation to prepay
fixed-rate debt prior to maturity, and, as a result, interest rate risk and changes in fair market
value should not have a significant impact on our fixed-rate debt until we are required or elect to
refinance it.
The table below sets forth, at January 31, 2011, our debt obligations, principal cash flows by
scheduled maturity, weighted-average interest rates and estimated fair value (amounts in
thousands):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed-rate debt |
|
|
Variable-rate debt |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Weighted- |
|
Fiscal year of |
|
|
|
|
|
average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
average |
|
maturity |
|
Amount |
|
|
interest rate |
|
|
Amount |
|
|
interest rate |
|
2011 |
|
$ |
17,920 |
|
|
|
3.25 |
% |
|
$ |
19,410 |
|
|
|
4.50 |
% |
2012 |
|
|
17,455 |
|
|
|
3.53 |
% |
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
0.55 |
% |
2013 |
|
|
348,790 |
|
|
|
6.39 |
% |
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
0.55 |
% |
2014 |
|
|
270,342 |
|
|
|
4.94 |
% |
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
0.55 |
% |
2015 |
|
|
301,128 |
|
|
|
5.15 |
% |
|
|
150 |
|
|
|
0.55 |
% |
Thereafter |
|
|
690,369 |
|
|
|
7.94 |
% |
|
|
12,245 |
|
|
|
0.53 |
% |
Discount |
|
|
(9,871 |
) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
|
$ |
1,636,133 |
|
|
|
6.51 |
% |
|
$ |
32,255 |
|
|
|
2.92 |
% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fair value at January 31, 2011 |
|
$ |
1,736,941 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
$ |
32,255 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Based upon the amount of variable-rate debt outstanding at January 31, 2011, and holding the
variable-rate debt balance constant, each 1% increase in interest rates would increase the interest
incurred by us by approximately $0.3 million per year.
42
|
|
|
ITEM 4. |
|
CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES |
Any controls and procedures, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only
reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the
design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints and the
benefits of controls must be considered relative to costs. Because of the inherent limitations in
all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance that all control
issues and instances of fraud, if any, within the company have been detected. Because of the
inherent limitations in a cost-effective control system, misstatements due to error or fraud may
occur and not be detected. However, our disclosure controls and procedures are designed to provide
reasonable assurance of achieving their objectives.
Our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, with the assistance of management,
evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures, as defined in Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the Exchange Act)
as of the end of the period covered by this report (the Evaluation Date). Based on that
evaluation, our chief executive officer and chief financial officer concluded that, as of the
Evaluation Date, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective to provide reasonable
assurance that information required to be disclosed in our reports under the Exchange Act is
recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the Securities
and Exchange Commissions rules and forms, and that such information is accumulated and
communicated to management, including our chief executive officer and chief financial officer, as
appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosure.
There has not been any change in internal control over financial reporting during our quarter ended
January 31, 2011 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our
internal control over financial reporting.
PART II OTHER INFORMATION
|
|
|
ITEM 1. |
|
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
We are involved in various claims and litigation arising principally in the ordinary course of
business.
In January 2006, we received a request for information pursuant to Section 308 of the Clean Water
Act from Region 3 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning storm water
discharge practices in connection with our homebuilding projects in the states that comprise EPA
Region 3. We provided information to the EPA pursuant to the request. The U.S. Department of
Justice (DOJ) has now assumed responsibility for the oversight of this matter and has alleged
that we have violated regulatory requirements applicable to storm water discharges and that it may
seek injunctive relief and/or civil penalties. We are now engaged in settlement discussions with
representatives from the DOJ and the EPA.
On April 17, 2007, a securities class action suit was filed against Toll Brothers, Inc. and Robert
I. Toll and Bruce E. Toll in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of the purported class of purchasers of our common stock between December 9, 2004 and
November 8, 2005. The original plaintiff has been replaced by two new lead plaintiffs: The City of
Hialeah Employees Retirement System and the Laborers Pension Trust Funds for Northern California.
On August 14, 2007, an amended complaint was filed and the following individual director and officer defendants
were added to the suit: Zvi Barzilay, Joel H.
Rassman, Robert S. Blank, Richard J. Braemer, Carl B. Marbach, Paul E. Shapiro and Joseph R.
Sicree. The amended complaint filed on behalf of the purported class alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing various materially false and misleading statements that
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of our stock. They further allege that
the individual defendants sold shares for substantial gains during the class period. The purported
class is seeking compensatory damages, counsel fees, and expert costs. The parties reached a
settlement agreement in principle in July 2010, which was subject to approval by the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In March 2011 the Court issued an order, granting final approval to the settlement reached between the parties.
The entire settlement amount will be funded by the
Companys insurers.
On November 4, 2008, a shareholder derivative action was filed in the Chancery Court of Delaware by
Milton Pfeiffer against Robert I. Toll, Zvi Barzilay, Joel H. Rassman, Bruce E. Toll, Paul E.
Shapiro, Robert S. Blank, Carl B. Marbach, and Richard J. Braemer. The plaintiff purports to bring
his claims on behalf of Toll Brothers, Inc. and alleges that the director and officer defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to us and our stockholders with respect to the stock sales alleged
in the securities class action discussed above, by selling while in possession of material inside
information about us. The plaintiff seeks contribution and indemnification from the individual
director and officer defendants for any liability found against us in the securities class action
suit. In addition, again purportedly on our behalf, the plaintiff seeks disgorgement of the
defendants profits from their stock sales.
43
On March 4, 2009, a second shareholder derivative action was brought by Oliverio Martinez in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case was brought against the
eleven then-current members of our board of directors and Chief Accounting Officer. This complaint
alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment during the
period from February 2005 to November 2006. The complaint further alleges that certain of the
defendants sold our stock during this period while in possession of the allegedly non-public,
material information about the role of speculative investors in our sales and plaintiff seeks
disgorgement of profits from these sales. The complaint also asserts a claim for equitable
indemnity for costs and expenses incurred by us in connection with defending the securities class
action discussed above.
On April 1, 2009, a third shareholder derivative action was filed by William Hall, also in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against the eleven then-current members of
our board of directors and our Chief Accounting Officer. This complaint is identical to the
previous shareholder complaint filed in Philadelphia and, on July 14, 2009, the two cases were
consolidated. On April 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint.
Our Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws provide for indemnification of our directors and
officers. We have also entered into individual indemnification agreements with each of our
directors.
Other than as set forth above, there are no proceedings required to be disclosed pursuant to Item
103 of Regulation
S-K.
There have been no material changes in our risk factors as previously disclosed in our Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010.
|
|
|
ITEM 2. |
|
UNREGISTERED SALES OF EQUITY SECURITIES AND USE OF PROCEEDS |
During the three months ended January 31, 2011, we repurchased the following shares of our common
stock:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total number |
|
|
Maximum |
|
|
|
Total |
|
|
Average |
|
|
of shares |
|
|
number of shares |
|
|
|
number of |
|
|
price |
|
|
purchased as part of |
|
|
that may yet be |
|
|
|
shares |
|
|
paid per |
|
|
publicly announced |
|
|
purchased under the |
|
Period |
|
purchased (a)(b) |
|
|
share |
|
|
plans or programs (c) |
|
|
plans or programs (c) |
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
|
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
|
(in thousands) |
|
November 1, 2010 to
November 30, 2010 |
|
|
3 |
|
|
$ |
18.85 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
11,827 |
|
December 1, 2010 to
December 31, 2010 |
|
|
8 |
|
|
$ |
18.87 |
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
|
11,824 |
|
January 1, 2011 to
January 31, 2011 |
|
|
2 |
|
|
$ |
20.10 |
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
|
11,822 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
|
$ |
19.08 |
|
|
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(a) |
|
The terms of our Restricted Stock Unit awards (RSUs) permit us to withhold from the
total number of
shares of our common stock that an employee is entitled to receive upon distribution pursuant
to a RSU that number of shares having a fair market value at the time of distribution equal to
the applicable income tax withholdings, and remit the remaining shares to the employee. During
the three months ended January 31, 2011, no RSU distributions were made. |
44
|
|
|
(b) |
|
Our stock incentive plans permit participants to exercise non-qualified stock options using
a net exercise
method at the discretion of the Executive Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors.
In a net exercise, we generally withhold from the total number of shares that otherwise would be issued to the
participant upon exercise of the stock option that number of shares having a fair market value at the time of
exercise equal to the option exercise price and applicable income tax withholdings, and remit
the remaining shares to the participant. During the three months ended January 31, 2011, the
net exercise method was employed to exercise options to acquire 194,000 shares of our common
stock; we withheld 98,900 of the
shares subject to the options to cover $1.9 million of option exercise costs and income tax
withholdings and issued the remaining 95,100 shares to the participants. In addition, our stock
incentive plans also permit
participants to use the fair market value of Company common stock they own to pay for the
exercise of stock options (stock swap method). During the three months ended January 31,
2011, the Company received 4,400 shares with an average fair market value per share of $18.79
for the exercise of 8,500 options. The 98,900 shares withheld in connection with the net
exercise method are not included in the total number of shares purchased in the table above.
The 4,400 shares used under the stock swap method are included in the total number of shares
purchased in the table above. |
|
(c) |
|
On March 20, 2003, we announced that our Board of Directors had authorized the repurchase
of up to 20 million shares of our common stock, par value $.01, from time to time, in open market
transactions or
otherwise, for the purpose of providing shares for our various employee benefit plans. The Board of Directors
did not fix an expiration date for the repurchase program. |
Except as set forth above, we have not repurchased any of our equity securities.
We have not paid any cash dividends on our common stock to date and expect that, for the
foreseeable future, we will not do so. Rather, we will follow a policy of retaining earnings in
order to finance future growth in our business and, from time to time, repurchase shares of our
common stock.
The payment of dividends is within the discretion of our Board of Directors and any decision to pay
dividends in the future will depend upon an evaluation of a number of factors, including our
earnings, capital requirements, our operating and financial condition, and any contractual
limitations then in effect. In addition, our Credit Facility requires
us to maintain a minimum tangible net worth (as defined in the credit agreement), which restricts
the amount of dividends we may pay. At January 31, 2011, under the most restrictive of these
provisions, we could have paid up to approximately $647.3 million of cash dividends.
|
|
|
10.1*+
|
|
Amendment No. 1 to the Toll Brothers, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan dated
December 30, 2010. |
|
|
|
10.2*+
|
|
Amendment No. 2 to the Toll Bros., Inc. Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Plan
dated December 30, 2010. |
|
|
|
31.1*
|
|
Certification of Douglas C. Yearley, Jr. pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
|
31.2*
|
|
Certification of Martin P. Connor pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
|
32.1*
|
|
Certification of Douglas C. Yearley, Jr. pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
|
32.2*
|
|
Certification of Martin P. Connor pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. |
|
|
|
101.INS**
|
|
XBRL Instance Document |
|
|
|
101.SCH**
|
|
XBRL Schema Document |
|
|
|
101.CAL**
|
|
XBRL Calculation Linkbase Document |
|
|
|
101.LAB**
|
|
XBRL Labels Linkbase Document |
|
|
|
101.PRE**
|
|
XBRL Presentation Linkbase Document |
|
|
|
* |
|
Filed electronically herewith. |
|
** |
|
Furnished electronically herewith. |
|
+ |
|
Management contract or compensation plan or arrangement required to be filed as an exhibit to this report. |
45
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOLL BROTHERS, INC. |
|
|
|
|
(Registrant) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: March 8, 2011
|
|
By:
|
|
/s/ Martin P. Connor
Martin P. Connor
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Vice President, Treasurer
and
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Date: March 8, 2011
|
|
By:
|
|
/s/ Joseph R. Sicree
Joseph R. Sicree
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Principal Accounting Officer) |
|
|
46