← Materials

Nothing is marked as applying, deliberately — no basis produces a ratio. Earnings, operating cash flow and free cash flow are all negative, so there is no denominator to divide the dividend by. That is not a gap in the data; it is the answer. The dividend was funded from something other than the money the business made this year — borrowing, cash on hand, or asset sales — and the filing will say which.

Coverage rating 15 / 100 — Not covered. ? Peer standing 15/50Direction 0/30Stability 0/20

Against its own history: 68.8% this year vs 37.9% median over the prior 5. A gap this size is usually a one-off — acquisition, settlement, cyclical trough — not a dividend that stopped being funded. The rating reads the latest year; the table shows the trend.

Free cash flow payout, last 6 years

Coverage worsened sharply this year, 22.0% to 68.8%, after no clear trend before it. One year is not a trend, but it is worth knowing which direction the last one moved.

30% of the 47 materials here pay out more.

The arithmetic

• GAAP earnings — dividends declared per share $0.240 ÷ diluted EPS $-1.13
• Operating cash flow — dividends paid $10.5m ÷ operating cash flow $-28.7m
• Free cash flow — dividends paid $10.5m ÷ (operating cash flow $-28.7m − capex $17.2m)

Where the figures came from

• 10-K filed 2026-03-16 · accession 0001437749-26-008411

Every one is public at sec.gov and free to check. That is the point — you should not have to take our word for any of it.

Caveats on this company

• DPS derived from dividends paid ($0.24); no per-share tag filed

Computed by an open pipeline reading SEC XBRL directly. If any number here looks wrong to you, tell us — that is more useful to us than agreement.