Primary driver of the $147.9 million net loss
The press release does not spell out a single line‑item that “caused” the loss, but the information that is provided points to a gap between the company’s operating earnings (adjusted EBITDA) and the total expenses (including non‑operating items) that were recorded in the quarter. In other words, the loss was driven by expenses that exceeded the positive adjusted EBITDA of $76.5 million.
Key points that support this interpretation:
| Item from the release | What it tells us |
|---|---|
| Adjusted EBITDA with Tax Attributes of $76.5 million | The core operating performance (adjusted EBITDA) was positive, indicating that the core business generated cash‑flow‑positive results. |
| Net loss of $147.9 million (basic loss per share $1.70) | Despite the positive adjusted EBITDA, the company ended the quarter with a large loss. This implies that non‑operating expenses, one‑time charges, or other items not reflected in the adjusted EBITDA were substantial enough to flip the result into a $147.9 million loss. |
| Cost‑reduction initiatives delivering $42 million in year‑over‑year operating savings | The company is actively trying to curb expenses, indicating that operating costs were a major concern. Even with these savings, the net loss remains large, reinforcing the idea that other, likely non‑operating, items (e.g., impairment charges, restructuring costs, interest expense, taxes, or other one‑off items) were the primary drivers. |
In short
- The primary driver of the $147.9 million net loss appears to be large non‑operating or one‑time expenses that were not offset by the positive operating cash flow reflected in the adjusted EBITDA.
- The company’s mention of “company‑wide cost‑reduction initiatives” suggests that operating costs were high enough to require aggressive cost‑cutting measures, but the loss is still largely a result of expenses beyond the scope of adjusted EBITDA.
Note: The exact nature of those expense items (e.g., write‑offs, impairment charges, or interest expense) is not detailed in the brief excerpt provided. The answer is derived from the contrast between positive adjusted EBITDA and the overall net loss as presented in the news release.