Attached files

file filename
EX-31.2 - EXHIBIT 31.2 - Triton International Ltdexhibit31212-31x2017.htm
EX-32.2 - EXHIBIT 32.2 - Triton International Ltdexhibit32212-31x2017.htm
EX-32.1 - EXHIBIT 32.1 - Triton International Ltdexhibit32112-31x2017.htm
EX-31.1 - EXHIBIT 31.1 - Triton International Ltdexhibit31112-31x2017.htm
EX-23.1 - EXHIBIT 23.1 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM - Triton International Ltdexhibit231consentofindepen.htm
EX-21.1 - EXHIBIT 21.1 LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES - Triton International Ltdexhibit211listofsubsidiari.htm

 
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 
FORM 10-K
ý
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For The Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2017
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- 001-37827
Triton International Limited
(Exact name of registrant as specified in the charter)
Bermuda
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)
 
98-1276572
(I.R.S. Employer Identification Number)
 
 
 
Canon's Court, 22 Victoria Street, Hamilton HM12, Bermuda
(Address of principal executive office)
 
 
 
(441) 294-8033
(Registrant's telephone number including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of Each Class
 
Name of Exchange On Which Registered
Common shares, $0.01 par value per share
 
The New York Stock Exchange
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ý    No o
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes o     No ý 
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 requirement for the past 90 days. Yes ý    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 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ý    No o
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer," "smaller reporting company," and "emerging growth company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large Accelerated Filer ý
 
 
 
Accelerated Filer o
 
 
Non-accelerated filer o
 
 
 
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)
 
 
Emerging growth company o
 
 
 
Smaller reporting company o
 
 
If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o    No ý
The aggregate market value of voting common shares held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2017 was approximately $1,425.6 million. As of February 21, 2018, there were 80,827,183 common shares, $0.01 par value, of the Registrant outstanding.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Part of Form 10-K
Document Incorporated by Reference
Part III, Items 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14
Portion of the Registrant's proxy statement to be filed in connection with the Annual Meeting of Shareholders of the Registrant to be held on May 2, 2018.
 



Table of Contents
 
 
Page No.

2



CAUTIONARY NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS
This annual report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, that involve substantial risks and uncertainties. In addition, we, or our executive officers on our behalf, may from time to time make forward-looking statements in reports and other documents we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, or in connection with oral statements made to the press, potential investors or others. All statements, other than statements of historical facts, including statements regarding our strategy, future operations, future financial position, future revenues, projected costs, prospects, plans and objectives of management are forward-looking statements. The words "expect," "estimate," "anticipate," "predict," "believe," "think," "plan," "will," "should," "intend," "seek," "potential" and similar expressions and variations are intended to identify forward-looking statements, although not all forward-looking statements contain these identifying words.
All forward-looking statements address matters that involve risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond Triton's control. Accordingly, there are or will be important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those indicated in such statements and, therefore, you should not place undue reliance on any such statements. These factors include, without limitation, economic, business, competitive, market and regulatory conditions and the following:
decreases in the demand for leased containers;
decreases in market leasing rates for containers;
difficulties in re-leasing containers after their initial fixed-term leases;
customers' decisions to buy rather than lease containers;
dependence on a limited number of customers for a substantial portion of our revenues;
customer defaults;
decreases in the selling prices of used containers;
extensive competition in the container leasing industry;
difficulties stemming from the international nature of Triton's businesses;
decreases in demand for international trade;
disruption to Triton's operations resulting from political and economic policies of the United States and other countries, particularly China;
disruption to Triton's operations from failure of or attacks on Triton's information technology systems;
disruption to Triton's operations as a result of natural disasters;
compliance with laws and regulations related to economic and trade sanctions, security, anti-terrorism, environmental protection and corruption;
ability to obtain sufficient capital to support growth;
restrictions on businesses imposed by the terms of Triton's debt agreements;
changes in the tax laws in the United States and other countries; and
other risks and uncertainties, including those listed under the caption "Risk Factors."
The foregoing list of important factors should not be construed as exhaustive and should be read in conjunction with the other cautionary statements that are included herein and elsewhere, including the risk factors included in this annual report on Form 10-K. Any forward-looking statements made in this annual report on Form 10-K are qualified in their entirety by these cautionary statements, and there can be no assurance that the actual results or developments anticipated by us will be realized or, even if substantially realized, that they will have the expected consequences to, or effects on, Triton or its respective businesses or operations. Except to the extent required by applicable law, we undertake no obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future developments or otherwise.

3


MERGER OF TRITON CONTAINER INTERNATIONAL LIMITED AND TAL INTERNATIONAL GROUP, INC. TO FORM TRITON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

On November 9, 2015, Triton Container International Limited, an exempted company incorporated with limited liability under the laws of Bermuda ("TCIL"), and TAL International Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("TAL"), announced that they entered into a definitive Transaction Agreement (the "Transaction Agreement") to combine in an all-stock merger (the "Merger"). On July 12, 2016, TCIL and TAL combined under a newly-formed company, Triton International Limited ("Triton", "we", "our" or the "Company"), which is domiciled in Bermuda and is listed on the New York Stock Exchange under the stock symbol "TRTN".

Post-Merger Organization Structure Relevant to this Form 10-K

On July 12, 2016, the transactions contemplated by the Transaction Agreement were approved by the stockholders of TAL and became effective. Former TCIL shareholders owned approximately 55% of the outstanding equity of the Company and former TAL stockholders owned approximately 45% of the outstanding equity of the Company on that date. The Company, through its subsidiaries, leases intermodal transportation equipment, primarily maritime containers, and provides maritime container management services through a worldwide network of subsidiary offices, third-party depots and other facilities. Triton operates in both international and U.S. markets. The majority of Triton's business is derived from leasing its containers to shipping line customers through a variety of long-term and short-term contractual lease arrangements. Triton also sells its own containers and containers purchased from third parties for resale. Triton's registered office is located at Canon's Court, 22 Victoria Street, Hamilton HM12, Bermuda.
Since completion of the Merger, Brian M. Sondey, who was the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of TAL, has served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Triton; Simon R. Vernon, who was the President and Chief Executive Officer of TCIL, has served as President of Triton. The Company announced on January 18, 2018, that Mr. Vernon will retire on February 28, 2018 but will continue as a member of the Board of Directors. ; and John Burns, who was the Chief Financial Officer of TAL, has served as the Chief Financial Officer of Triton.

WEBSITE ACCESS TO COMPANY'S REPORTS AND CODE OF ETHICS

Our Internet website address is http://www.trtn.com. Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act are available free of charge through our website as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC.

We have adopted a code of ethics that applies to all of our employees, officers, and directors, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer. The text of our code of ethics is posted within the Corporate Governance portion of the Investors section of our website.

        Also, copies of our annual report and Code of Ethics will be made available, free of charge, upon written request to:

Triton International Limited
Canon's Court
22 Victoria Street
Hamilton HM12, Bermuda
Attn: Marc Pearlin, Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Telephone: (441) 294-8033

SERVICE MARKS MATTERS

The following items referred to in this annual report are registered or unregistered service marks in the United States and/or foreign jurisdictions pursuant to applicable intellectual property laws and are the property of Triton and its subsidiaries: Triton® and TAL®.


4


PART I
ITEM 1. BUSINESS
Our Company
On July 12, 2016, Triton Container International Limited, ("TCIL"), and TAL International Group, Inc. ("TAL"), combined in an all-stock merger (the "Merger"). Under the terms of the Transaction Agreement, TCIL and TAL combined under a newly formed holding company, Triton International Limited (“Triton”, “we”, "our” or the “Company”).
We are the world's largest lessor of intermodal containers. Intermodal containers are large, standardized steel boxes used to transport freight by ship, rail or truck. Because of the handling efficiencies they provide, intermodal containers are the primary means by which many goods and materials are shipped internationally. We also lease chassis which are used for the transportation of containers.
Segments
We operate our business in one industry, intermodal transportation equipment, and have two business segments, which also represent our reporting segments:
Equipment leasing—We own, lease and ultimately dispose of containers and chassis from our lease fleet, as well as manage containers owned by third parties.

Equipment trading—We purchase containers from shipping line customers, and other sellers of containers, and resell these containers to container retailers and users of containers for storage or one-way shipment.

Equipment Leasing Segment

        Our equipment leasing operations include the acquisition, leasing, re-leasing and ultimate sale of multiple types of intermodal transportation equipment, primarily intermodal containers. We have an extensive global presence. We operate our business through 24 offices located in 15 countries, and offer leasing services through approximately 456 third-party container depot facilities in 47 countries as of December 31, 2017. Our customers are among the world's largest shipping lines and include, among others, CMA CGM, Mediterranean Shipping Company, Mitsui O.S.K, NYK Line and COSCO.

        We lease five types of equipment: (1) dry freight containers, which are used for general cargo such as manufactured component parts, consumer staples, electronics and apparel, (2) refrigerated containers, which are used for perishable items such as fresh and frozen foods, (3) special containers, which are used for heavy and oversized cargo such as marble slabs, building products and machinery, (4) tank containers, which are used to transport bulk liquid products such as chemicals, and (5) chassis, which are used for the transportation of containers.

        We generally lease our equipment on a per diem basis to our customers under three types of leases: long-term leases, finance leases and service leases. Long-term leases typically have initial contractual terms ranging from three to eight years and provide us with stable cash flow and low transaction costs by requiring customers to maintain specific units on-hire for the duration of the lease. Finance leases are typically structured as full payout leases, and provide for a predictable recurring revenue stream with the lowest cost to the customer because customers are generally required to retain the equipment for the duration of its useful life. Service leases command a premium per diem rate in exchange for providing customers with a greater level of operational flexibility by allowing the pick-up and drop-off of units during the lease term. We also have expired long-term leases whose fixed terms have ended but for which the related units remain on-hire and for which we continue to receive rental payments pursuant to the terms of the initial contract. Some leases have contractual terms that have features reflective of both long-term and service leases, and we classify such leases as either long-term or service leases, depending upon which features we believe are predominant.


5


Our leases require lessees to maintain the equipment in good operating condition, defend and indemnify us from liabilities relating to the equipment contents and handling and return the equipment to specified drop-off locations. The following table provides a summary of our equipment lease portfolio by lease type, based on cost equivalent units (CEU), as of December 31, 2017:
Lease Portfolio
 
December 31, 2017
Long-term leases
 
72.2
%
Finance leases
 
4.9

Service leases
 
14.1

Expired long-term leases (units on-hire)
 
8.8

Total
 
100.0
%

        As of December 31, 2017, our long-term and finance leases had an average remaining lease term of 43 months.

        The most important driver of profitability in our leasing segment is the extent to which leasing revenues, which are driven primarily by our owned equipment fleet size, utilization and average rental rates, exceed our ownership and operating costs. Our profitability is also driven by the gains or losses we realize on the sale of used containers because, in the ordinary course of our business, we sell certain containers when they are returned to us.

Equipment Trading Segment

        Through our extensive operating network, we purchase containers from shipping line customers and other sellers of containers and resell these containers to container retailers and users of containers for storage and one-way shipments.

        Total revenues for the equipment trading segment are primarily made up of equipment trading revenues, which represents the proceeds from sales of trading equipment, and leasing revenue related to containers purchased with the intent to resell. The profitability of this segment is largely driven by the volume of units purchased and sold, our per-unit selling margin, and our direct operating and administrative expenses.

We acquired the equipment trading segment as part of the consummation of the Merger on July 12, 2016 and had no such reporting unit prior to that time.

Industry Overview

Intermodal containers provide a secure and cost-effective method of transporting raw materials, component parts and finished goods because they can be used in multiple modes of transport. By making it possible to move cargo from a point of origin to a final destination without repeated unpacking and repacking, containers reduce freight and labor costs. In addition, automated handling of containers permits faster loading and unloading of vessels, more efficient utilization of transportation equipment and reduced transit time. The protection provided by sealed containers also reduces cargo damage and the loss and theft of goods during shipment.

Over the last thirty years, containerized trade has grown at a rate greater than that of general worldwide economic growth. According to Clarkson Research Studies, worldwide containerized cargo volume increased at a compound annual growth rate ("CAGR") of 7.9% from 1987 to 2017. We believe that this high historical growth was due to several factors, including the shift in global manufacturing capacity to lower labor cost areas such as China and India, the continued integration of developing high growth economies into global trade patterns and the continued conversion of cargo from bulk shipping into containers. However, worldwide containerized cargo volume growth has been lower over the last few years, averaging 3.2% CAGR from 2013 to 2017, due to weak global economic growth and a significant reduction in the difference between global trade growth and global economic growth.

Container leasing firms maintain inventories of new and used containers in a wide range of worldwide locations and supply these containers primarily to shipping line customers under a variety of short and long-term lease structures. Based on container fleet information reported by Drewry Maritime Research, we estimate that container lessors owned approximately 20.3 million twenty-foot equivalent units ("TEU"), or approximately 52% of the total worldwide container fleet of 39.2 million TEU, as of the end of 2017.



6


Leasing containers helps shipping lines improve their overall container fleet efficiency and provides the shipping lines with an alternative source of equipment financing. Given the uncertainty and variability of export volumes, and the fact that shipping lines have difficulty in accurately forecasting their container requirements on a day-by-day, port-by-port basis, the availability of containers for lease on short notice reduces shipping lines' need to purchase and maintain larger container inventory buffers. In addition, the drop-off flexibility provided by operating leases also allows the shipping lines to adjust their container fleet sizes and the mix of container types in their fleets both seasonally and over time and helps to balance their trade flows.
        
Spot leasing rates are typically a function of, among other things, new equipment prices (which are heavily influenced by steel prices), interest rates and the equipment supply and demand balance at a particular time and location. Average leasing rates on an entire portfolio of leases respond more gradually to changes in new equipment prices or changes in the balance of container supply and demand because lease agreements are generally only re-priced upon the expiration of the lease. In addition, the value that lessors receive upon resale of equipment is closely related to the cost of new equipment.

Operations

We operate our business through 24 offices located in 15 different countries as of December 31, 2017. Our field operations include a global sales force, a global container operations group, an equipment resale group, and a logistics services group. Our headquarters is located in Bermuda.

Our Equipment

        Intermodal containers are designed to meet a number of criteria outlined by the International Standards Organization (ISO). The standard criteria include the size of the container and the gross weight rating of the container. This standardization ensures that containers can be used by the widest possible number of transporters and it facilitates container and vessel sharing by the shipping lines. The standardization of the container is also an important element of the container leasing business since we can operate one fleet of containers that can be used by all of our major customers.

        Our fleet consists of five types of equipment:

Dry Containers.  A dry container is essentially a steel constructed box with a set of doors on one end. Dry containers come in lengths of 20, 40 or 45 feet. They are 8 feet wide, and either 8½ or 9½ feet tall. Dry containers are the least expensive and most widely used type of intermodal container and are used to carry general cargo such as manufactured component parts, consumer staples, electronics and apparel.

Refrigerated Containers.  Refrigerated containers include an integrated cooling machine and an insulated container. Refrigerated containers come in lengths of 20 or 40 feet. They are 8 feet wide, and are either 8½ or 9½ feet tall. These containers are typically used to carry perishable cargo such as fresh and frozen produce.

Special Containers.  Most of our special containers are open top and flat rack containers. Open top containers come in similar sizes as dry containers, but do not have a fixed roof. Flat rack containers come in varying sizes and are steel platforms with folding ends and no fixed sides. Open top and flat rack containers are generally used to move heavy or bulky cargos, such as marble slabs, steel coils or factory components, that cannot be easily loaded on a fork lift through the doors of a standard container.

Tank Containers.  Tank containers are stainless steel cylindrical tanks enclosed in rectangular steel frames with the same outside dimensions as 20 foot dry containers. These containers carry bulk liquids such as chemicals.

Chassis.  An intermodal chassis is a rectangular, wheeled steel frame, generally 23½, 40 or 45 feet in length, built specifically for the purpose of transporting intermodal containers over the road. Longer sized chassis, designed to solely accommodate rail containers, can be up to 53 feet in length. Once mounted, the chassis and container are the functional equivalent of a trailer. When mounted on a chassis, the container may be trucked either to its destination or to a railroad terminal for loading onto a rail car. Our chassis are primarily used in the United States.

Our Leases

        Most of our revenues are derived from leasing our equipment fleet to our core shipping line customers. The majority of our leases are structured as operating leases, though we also provide customers with finance leases. Regardless of the lease type, we seek to exceed our targeted return on our investments over the life cycle of the equipment by managing utilization,

7


lease rates, and the used equipment sale process.
     
  Our lease products provide numerous operational and financial benefits to our shipping line customers. These benefits include:

Operating Flexibility.  The timing, location and daily volume of cargo movements for a shipping line are often unpredictable. Leasing containers and chassis help the shipping lines manage this uncertainty and minimizes the requirement for large inventory buffers by allowing them to pick-up leased equipment on short notice.

Fleet Size and Mix Flexibility.  The drop-off flexibility included in container and chassis operating leases allows shipping lines to more quickly adjust the size of their fleets and the mix of container types in their fleets as their trade volumes and patterns change due to seasonality, market changes or changes in company strategies.

Alternative Source of Financing.  Container and chassis leases provide an additional source of equipment financing to help shipping lines manage the high level of investment required to maintain pace with the growth of the asset intensive container shipping industry.

        Operating Leases.    Operating leases are structured to allow customers flexibility to pick-up equipment on short notice and to drop-off equipment prior to the end of its useful life. Because of this flexibility, most of our containers and chassis will go through several pick-up and drop-off cycles. Our operating lease contracts specify a per diem rate for equipment on-hire, where and when such equipment can be returned, how the customer will be charged for damage and the charge for lost or destroyed equipment, among other things.

        We categorize our operating leases as either long-term leases or service leases. Some leases have contractual terms that have features reflective of both long-term and service leases. We classify such leases as either long-term or service leases, depending upon which features we believe are predominant. Long-term leases typically have initial contractual terms ranging from three to eight years with an average term of approximately five years at lease inception. Our long-term leases require our customers to maintain specific units on-hire for the duration of the lease term, and they provide us with predictable recurring cash flow. As of December 31, 2017, 72.2% of our on-hire containers and chassis were under long-term operating leases.

        We also have expired long-term leases whose fixed terms have ended but for which the related units remain on-hire and for which we continue to receive rental payments pursuant to the terms of the initial contract. As of December 31, 2017, 8.8% of our on-hire containers and chassis were on long-term leases whose fixed terms have expired but for which the related units remain on-hire and for which we continue to receive rental payments.

        Some of our long-term leases give our customers Early Termination Options ("ETOs"). If exercised, ETOs allow customers to return equipment prior to the expiration of the long-term lease. However, if an ETO is exercised, the customer is required to pay a penalty per diem rate that is applied retroactively to the beginning of the lease. As a result of this retroactive penalty, ETOs have historically been exercised infrequently.

        Service leases allow our customers to pick-up and drop-off equipment during the term of the lease, subject to contractual limitations. Service leases provide the customer with a higher level of flexibility than long-term leases and, as a result, typically carry a higher per diem rate. The terms of our service leases can range from 12 months to five years, though, because equipment can be returned during the term of a service lease and since service leases are generally renewed or modified and extended upon expiration, lease term does not dictate expected on-hire time for our equipment on service leases. As of December 31, 2017, 14.1% of our on-hire containers and chassis were under service leases and this equipment has been on-hire for an average of 27 months.

        Finance Leases.    Finance leases provide our customers with an alternative method to finance their equipment acquisitions. Finance leases are generally structured for specific quantities of equipment, generally require the customer to keep the equipment on-hire for its remaining useful life, and typically provide the customer with a purchase option at the end of the lease term. As of December 31, 2017, approximately 4.9% of our on-hire containers and chassis were under finance leases.

        As of December 31, 2017, our long-term and finance leases had an average remaining duration of 43 months, assuming no leases are renewed. However, we believe that many of our customers will renew operating leases for equipment that is less than sale age at the expiration of the lease. In addition, our equipment on operating leases typically remains on-hire at the contractual per diem rate for an additional six to twelve months beyond the end of the contractual lease term due to the logistical requirements of our customers having to return the containers and chassis to specific drop-off locations.

8



       Lease Documentation.    In general, our lease agreements consist of two basic elements, a master lease agreement and a lease addendum. Lease addenda typically contain the business terms (including daily rate, term duration and drop-off schedule, among other things) for specific leasing transactions, while master lease agreements typically outline the general rights and obligations of the lessor and lessee under all of the lease addenda covered by the master lease agreement (lease addenda will specify the master lease agreement that governs the addenda). For most customers, we have a small number of master lease agreements (often one) and a large number of lease addenda.

        Our master lease agreements generally require the lessees to pay rentals, depot charges, taxes and other charges when due, to maintain the equipment in good condition, to return the equipment in accordance with the return condition set forth in the master lease agreement, to use the equipment in compliance with all federal, state, local and foreign laws, and to pay us the specified value of the equipment if the equipment is lost or destroyed. The default clause gives us certain legal remedies in the event that the lessee is in breach of the lease.

        The master lease agreements usually contain an exclusion of warranties clause and require lessees to defend and indemnify us in most instances from third-party claims arising out of the lessee's use, operation, possession or lease of the equipment. Lessees are generally required to maintain all risks physical damage insurance, comprehensive general liability insurance and to indemnify us against loss. We also maintain our own off-hire physical damage insurance to cover our equipment when it is not on-hire to lessees and third-party liability insurance for both on-hire and off-hire equipment. Nevertheless, such insurance or indemnities may not fully protect us against damages arising from the use of our containers.

Logistics Management, Re-leasing, Depot Management and Equipment Disposals

        We believe that managing the period after our equipment's first lease is the most important aspect of our business. Successful management of this period requires disciplined logistics management, extensive re-lease capability, careful cost control and effective sales of used equipment.

        Logistics Management.    Since the late 1990's, the shipping industry has been characterized by large regional trade imbalances, with loaded containers generally flowing from export oriented economies in Asia to North America and Western Europe. Because of these trade imbalances, shipping lines have an incentive to return leased containers in North America and Europe to reduce the cost of empty container backhaul. Triton attempts to mitigate the risk of these unbalanced trade flows by maintaining a large portion of our fleet on long-term and finance leases and by contractually restricting the ability of our customers to return containers outside of Asian demand locations.

        In addition, we attempt to minimize the costs of any container imbalances by finding local users in surplus locations and by moving empty containers as inexpensively as possible. While we believe we manage our logistics risks and costs effectively, logistical risk remains an important element of our business due to competitive pressures, changing trade patterns and other market factors and uncertainties.

        Re-leasing.    Since our operating leases allow customers to return containers and chassis prior to the end of their useful lives, we typically are required to place containers and chassis on several leases during their useful lives. Initial lease transactions for new containers and chassis can usually be generated with a limited sales and customer service infrastructure because initial leases for new containers and chassis typically cover large volumes of units and are fairly standardized transactions. Used equipment, on the other hand, is typically leased out in small transactions that are structured to accommodate pick-ups and returns in a variety of locations. As a result, leasing companies benefit from having a large number of customers and maintaining a high level of operating contact with these customers.

        Depot Management.    As of December 31, 2017, we managed our equipment fleet through approximately 456 third-party owned and operated depot facilities located in 47 countries. Depot facilities are generally responsible for repairing our containers and chassis when they are returned by lessees and for storing the equipment while it is off-hire. We have a global operations group that is responsible for managing our depot contracts and they also regularly visit the depot facilities to conduct inventory and repair audits. We also supplement our internal operations group with the use of independent inspection agents.

        We are in constant communication with our depot partners through the use of electronic data interchange ("EDI"). Our depots gather and prepare all information related to the activity of our equipment at their facilities and transmit the information via EDI and the Internet to us. The information we receive from the depots updates our fully integrated container fleet management and tracking system.
     
  Most of the depot agency agreements follow a standard form and generally provide that the depot will be liable for loss

9


or damage of equipment and, in the event of loss or damage, will pay us the previously agreed loss value of the applicable equipment. The agreements require the depots to maintain insurance against equipment loss or damage and we carry insurance to cover the risk that the depots' insurance proves insufficient.

        Our container repair standards and processes are generally managed in accordance with standards and procedures specified by the Institute of International Container Lessors (IICL). The IICL establishes and documents the acceptable interchange condition for containers and the repair procedures required to return damaged containers to the acceptable interchange condition. At the time that containers are returned by lessees, the depot arranges an inspection of the containers to assess the repairs required to return the containers to acceptable IICL condition. This inspection process also splits the damage into two components, customer damage and normal wear and tear. Items typically designated as customer damage include dents in the container and debris left in the container, while items such as rust are typically designated as normal wear and tear.

        Our leases are generally structured so that the lessee is responsible for the customer damage portion of the repair costs, and customers are billed for damages at the time the equipment is returned. We sometimes offer our customers a repair service program whereby we, for an additional payment by the lessee (in the form of a higher per-diem rate or a flat fee at off-hire), assume financial responsibility for all or a portion of the cost of repairs upon return of the equipment (but not of total loss of the equipment), up to a pre-negotiated amount.

        Equipment Disposals.    Our in-house equipment sales group has a worldwide team of specialists that manage the sale process for our used containers and chassis from our lease fleet. We generally sell to portable storage companies, freight forwarders (who often use the containers for one-way trips) and other purchasers of used containers. We believe we are one of the world's largest sellers of used containers.

        The sale prices we receive for our used containers from our lease fleet are influenced by many factors, including the level of demand for used containers compared to the number of used containers available for disposal in a particular location, the cost of new containers, and the level of damage on the containers. While our total revenue is primarily made up of leasing revenues, gains or losses on the sale of used containers can have a significant positive or negative impact on our profitability.

        Equipment Trading.    We also buy and sell new and used containers and chassis acquired from third parties. We typically purchase our equipment trading fleet from our shipping line customers or other sellers of used or new equipment. Trading margins are dependent on the volume of units purchased and resold, selling prices, costs paid for equipment sold and selling and administrative costs.

Environmental

        We face a number of environmental concerns, including potential liability due to accidental discharge from our containers, potential equipment obsolescence, retrofitting expenses due to changes in environmental regulations and increased risk of container performance problems due to container design changes driven by environmental factors. While we maintain environmental liability insurance coverage, and the terms of our leases and other arrangements for use of our containers place the responsibility for environmental liability on the end user, we still may be subject to environmental liability in connection with our current or historical operations. In certain countries like the United States, the owner of a leased container may be liable for the costs of environmental damage from the discharge of the contents of the container even though the owner is not at fault. Our lessees are required to indemnify us from environmental claims and our standard master tank container lease agreement insurance clause requires our tank container lessees to provide pollution liability insurance.      

We also face risks from changing environmental regulations, particularly with our refrigerated container product line. Many countries, including the United States, restrict, prohibit or otherwise regulate the use of chemical refrigerants due to their ozone depleting and global warming effects. Our refrigerated containers currently use R134A or 404A refrigerant. While R134A and 404A do not contain chlorofluorocarbons ("CFCs") (which have been restricted since 1995), the European Union ("EU") has instituted regulations to phase out the use of R134A in automobile air conditioning systems beginning in 2011 due to concern that the release of R134A into the atmosphere may contribute to global warming. While the EU regulations do not currently restrict the use of R134A or 404A in refrigerated containers or trailers, it has been proposed that R134A and 404A usage in intermodal containers may be banned beginning in 2025, although the final decision has not been made as of yet. Further, certain manufacturers of refrigerated containers, including the largest manufacturer of cooling machines for refrigerated containers, have begun testing units that utilize alternative refrigerants, such as carbon dioxide, that may have less global warming potential than R134A and 404A. If future regulations prohibit the use or servicing of containers using R134A or 404A refrigerants, we could be forced to incur large retrofitting expenses. In addition, refrigerated containers that are not retrofitted may become difficult to lease and command lower rental rates and disposal prices.


10


 Historically, the foam insulation in the walls of intermodal refrigerated containers required the use of a blowing agent that contains CFCs, specifically HCFC-141b. The manufacturers producing our refrigerated containers have eliminated the use of this blowing agent in the manufacturing process, but a large number of our refrigerated containers manufactured prior to 2014 contain these CFCs. The EU prohibits the import and the placing on the market in the EU of intermodal containers with insulation made with HCFC-141b (“EU regulation”). However, we believe international conventions governing free movement of intermodal containers allow the use of such intermodal refrigerated containers in the EU if they have been admitted into EU countries on temporary customs admission. Each country in the EU has its own individual and different regulations, and we have procedures in place that we believe comply with the relevant EU and country regulations. However, if such intermodal refrigerated containers exceed their temporary customs admission period and/or their custom admissions status changes (e.g., should such container be off-hired) and such intermodal refrigerated containers are deemed placed on the market in the EU, or if our procedures are deemed not to comply with EU or a country’s regulation, we could be subject to fines and penalties. Also, if future international conventions or regulations prohibit the use or servicing of containers with foam insulation that utilized this blowing agent during the manufacturing process, we could be forced to incur large retrofitting expenses and those containers that are not retrofitted may become more difficult to lease and command lower rental rates and disposal prices.

        An additional environmental concern affecting our operations relates to the construction materials used in our dry containers. The floors of dry containers are plywood usually made from tropical hardwoods. Due to concerns regarding de-forestation of tropical rain forests and climate change, many countries which have been the source of these hardwoods have implemented severe restrictions on the cutting and export of these woods. Accordingly, container manufacturers have switched a significant portion of production to more readily available alternatives such as birch, bamboo, and other farm grown wood species. Container users are also evaluating alternative designs that would limit the amount of plywood required and are also considering possible synthetic materials to replace the plywood. These new woods or other alternatives have not proven their durability over the typical 13-15 year life of a dry container, and if they cannot perform as well as the hardwoods have historically, the future repair and operating costs for these containers could be significantly higher and the useful life of the containers may be decreased.
The paint systems used for dry containers have recently been modified for environmental reasons. Container manufacturers have replaced solvent-based paint systems with water-based paint systems for dry container production. Water-based paint systems require more time and care for proper application, and there is an increased risk that the paint will not adhere properly to the steel for the expected useful life of the containers. Poor paint coverage leads to premature rusting, increased maintenance cost over the life of the container and could result in a shorter useful life. If water-based paint applications cannot perform as well as the solvent-based applications have historically, the future repair and operating costs for these containers could be significantly higher and the useful life of the containers may be decreased.

Credit Controls

We monitor our customers' performance and our lease exposures on an ongoing basis. Our credit management processes are aided by the long payment experience we have with most of our customers and our broad network of relationships in the shipping industry that provides current information about our customers' market reputations. Credit criteria may include, but are not limited to, customer payment history, customer financial position and performance (e.g., net worth, leverage and profitability), trade routes, country of domicile and the type of, and location of, equipment that is to be supplied.

We experienced a major lessee default in 2016 when Hanjin Shipping Co. ("Hanjin"), one of our largest customers, filed for bankruptcy court protection and defaulted on our lease agreements. Hanjin had approximately 87,000 of our containers on lease with a net book value of $243.3 million. We recorded a loss of $29.7 million during the third quarter ended September 30, 2016, comprised of bad debt expense and a charge for costs not expected to be recovered due to deductibles in our credit insurance policies. As of December 31, 2017, we recovered approximately 94% of our containers previously leased to Hanjin.

While we have recovered over 94% of the containers previously on-hire to Hanjin, we have incurred substantial costs in the recovery effort including a write-off of outstanding receivables; payments to terminals, depots, Hanjin shipping agents and others in possession of our containers to obtain the release of our containers; repair and handling costs; and positioning costs to move containers recovered from locations with weak leasing demand to higher demand locations.

Through our TCIL and TAL subsidiaries, we have historically maintained credit insurance to help mitigate the cost and risk of lessee defaults and this insurance coverage reduced our costs resulting from the default of Hanjin, by approximately $67.0 million. However, our credit insurance policies typically had annual terms, and in the aftermath of the Hanjin bankruptcy, the availability of credit insurance protection has become much more limited and the cost of the more limited protection has increased substantially. We currently assess the cost and level of this type of credit insurance protection offered to us as

11


uneconomic, and have allowed this credit insurance coverage to lapse. We have obtained a more limited credit insurance policy covering only accounts receivables for some of our customers. This policy does not cover recovery costs, has exclusions and payment and other limitations, and therefore may not protect us from losses arising from customer defaults. Therefore we may be forced to incur all of the losses resulting from future lessee defaults, significantly increasing the likelihood that a lessee default would have a material adverse impact on our profitability and financial condition.
 
Marketing and Customer Service

Our global marketing force and our customer service representatives are responsible for developing and maintaining relationships with senior operations staff at our shipping line customers, negotiating lease contracts and maintaining day-to-day coordination with junior level staff at our customers. This close customer communication is critical to our ability to provide customers with a high level of service, and it helps us to negotiate lease contracts that satisfy both our financial return requirements and our customers' operating needs, and ensures that we are aware of our customers' potential equipment shortages and that they are aware of our available equipment inventories.

Customers

We believe that we have strong, long standing relationships with our largest customers, most of whom we have done business with for over 20 years. We currently have equipment on-hire to more than 300 customers, although our twenty largest customers account for 83% of our lease billings. Our customers are mainly international shipping lines, but we also lease containers to freight forwarding companies and manufacturers. The shipping industry has been consolidating for a number of years, and further consolidation could increase the portion of our revenues that come from our largest customers. Our five largest customers accounted for 55% of our lease billings, and our two largest customers are CMA CGM and Mediterranean Shipping Company which accounted for 19% and 14%, respectively, of our lease billings in 2017. No other customer exceeded 10% of our lease billings in 2017. A default by one of our major customers could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and future prospects.

Currency

The U.S. dollar is the operating currency for the large majority of our leases and obligations, and most of our revenues and expenses are denominated in U.S. dollars. However, we pay our subsidiaries non-U.S. staff in local currencies, and our direct operating expenses and disposal transactions for our older containers are often structured in foreign currencies. We record realized and unrealized foreign currency exchange gains and losses primarily due to fluctuations in exchange rates related to our Euro and Pound Sterling transactions and related assets and liabilities.

Systems and Information Technology

The efficient operation of our business is highly dependent on our information technology systems to track transactions, bill customers and provide the information needed to report our financial results. In 2017, TCIL and TAL successfully consolidated our operations onto one operating system. Our system allows customers to place pick-up and drop-off orders on the Internet, view current inventories and check contractual terms in effect with respect to any given container lease agreement. Our system also maintains a database which tracks all of the containers in our fleet and our leasing agreements, processes leasing and sale transactions, and bills our customers for their use of and damage to our containers. The Company also uses the information provided by these systems in our day-to-day business to make business decisions and improve our operations and customer service.


12


Suppliers

 We have long-standing relationships with all of our major suppliers. We purchase most of our containers and chassis in China. There are five large manufacturers of dry containers and three large manufacturers of refrigerated containers, though for both dry containers and refrigerated containers, the largest manufacturer accounts for more than 40% of global production volume. Our operations staff reviews the designs for our containers and periodically audits the production facilities of our suppliers. In addition, we use our Asian operations group and third-party inspectors to visit factories when our containers are being produced to provide an extra layer of quality control. Nevertheless, defects in our containers do sometimes occur. We work with the manufacturers to correct these defects, and our manufacturers have generally honored their warranty obligations in such cases.

Competition

We compete with more than eight other major intermodal equipment leasing companies, many smaller lessors, manufacturers of intermodal equipment and companies offering finance leases as distinct from operating leases. It is common for our customers to utilize several leasing companies to meet their equipment needs.

Our competitors compete with us in many ways, including lease pricing, lease flexibility, supply reliability and customer service. In times of weak demand or excess supply, leasing companies often respond by lowering leasing rates and increasing the logistical flexibility offered in their lease agreements. In addition, new entrants into the leasing business are often aggressive on pricing and lease flexibility.

While we are forced to compete aggressively on price, we attempt to emphasize our supply reliability and high level of customer service to our customers. We invest heavily to ensure adequate equipment availability in high demand locations, dedicate large portions of our organization to building customer relationships and maintaining close day-to-day coordination with customers' operating staffs, and we have developed powerful and user-friendly systems that allow our customers to transact with us through the Internet.

Employees

As of December 31, 2017, we employed 260 people in 24 offices, in 15 countries. We believe that our relations with our employees are good and we are not a party to any collective bargaining agreements.


13


ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS
Our business, financial condition and results of operations are subject to various risks and uncertainties noted throughout this report including those discussed below, which may affect the value of our securities. In addition to the risks discussed below, which we believe to be the most significant risks facing the Company, there may be additional risks not presently known to us or that we currently deem less significant that also may adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, possibly materially. Some statements in our risk factors constitute forward-looking statements. Please refer to the section entitled “Cautionary Note Concerning Forward-Looking Statements” in this report.
Market conditions for container lessors have been extremely volatile.
Market conditions and the operating and financial performance of container leasing companies have been extremely volatile. Market conditions such as steel and new container prices, global containerized trade growth, market lease rates and used container sale prices were strong from 2010 through 2014, driving a high level of profitability for container leasing companies. Market conditions subsequently deteriorated rapidly in 2015 and 2016, leading to a significant erosion in our operating and financial performance. Market conditions rebounded at the end of 2016 and remained favorable through 2017, leading to a recovery in our operating and financial performance. However, there is no assurance this improvement will continue. A reversal in market conditions back to the difficult conditions faced in 2015 and 2016, would lead to decreased profitability, reduced cash flows and a deterioration in our financial position.
We face significant re-pricing risk on expiring leases.
We are highly exposed to adverse lease re-pricing due to the large number of leases expiring in 2018 with historically high lease rates. The vast majority of our leases are structured as operating leases, and as a result have lease terms shorter than the useful life of the containers on-hire. When existing operating leases with above-market lease rates expire, we are forced to reduce the rates on the leases toward then-current market levels in order to extend the leases, or if leases are not extended, the containers will be returned by the original customer and re-marketed to other customers based on then-current market lease rates. Reducing lease rates on existing containers results in an immediate reduction in leasing revenue, profitability and cash flow. These impacts can be severe when a large number of containers are subject to adverse lease re-pricing.
Lease re-pricing was a major driver in our decreasing profitability during 2015 and 2016. While market lease rates rebounded in 2017, mitigating the impacts of lease re-pricing, market conditions have been extremely volatile and if market lease rates fell back toward the levels experienced in 2015 and 2016 we would face decreased profitability, reduced cash flows and a deterioration in our financial position.
Container leasing demand can be negatively affected by numerous market factors as well as external political and economic events that are beyond our control. Decreasing leasing demand could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Demand for containers depends largely on the rate of world trade and economic growth. Demand for leased containers is also driven by our customers’ “lease vs. buy” decisions. Cyclical recessions can negatively affect lessors’ operating results because during economic downturns or periods of reduced trade, shipping lines tend to lease fewer containers, or lease containers only at reduced rates, and tend to rely more on their own fleets to satisfy a greater percentage of their requirements. As a result, during periods of weak global economic activity, container lessors like us typically experience decreased leasing demand, decreased equipment utilization, lower average rental rates, decreased leasing revenue, decreased used container resale prices and significantly decreased profitability. These effects can be severe.
For example, our profitability decreased significantly from the third quarter of 2008 to the third quarter of 2009 due to the effects of the global financial crisis. In 2015 and for the first half of 2016, our operating performance and profitability was negatively impacted due to slower global trade growth resulting in reduced demand for leased containers, decreasing utilization, lease rental revenue and used container sales prices, and higher operating costs. Our profitability would have decreased further if trade activity did not start to recover at the end of 2016. If this trend were to reoccur, our results of operations and cash flows would be negatively affected.
Other general factors affecting demand for leased containers, container utilization and per diem rental rates include:
the available supply and prices of new and used containers;
changes in economic conditions, the operating efficiency of customers and competitive pressures in the shipping industry;
the availability and terms of equipment financing for customers;

14


fluctuations in interest rates and foreign currency values;
import/export tariffs and restrictions;
customs procedures;
foreign exchange controls; and
other governmental regulations and political or economic factors that are inherently unpredictable and may be beyond our control.​
Any of the aforementioned factors may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
The demand for leased containers is driven by the volume of international containerized trade. The growth rate of international containerized trade has been historically low for several years and could fall further due to a slowdown in the global economy, increased trade protectionism or many other factors.
The growth rate of global containerized trade growth has been historically low for several years, reflecting both a reduction in the rate of global economic growth and decrease in the rate of trade growth relative to the rate of global economic growth. During periods of weak global trade growth, our customers have lower requirements for containers, attempt to reduce operating costs by returning leased containers and tend to lease containers at lower rates. Reduced trade growth was a major driver behind the difficult market conditions and decreasing operating and financial performance in 2015 and 2016.
While trade growth recovered somewhat in 2017, it remained well below historical levels, and many forecasters project that global economic growth and global trade growth are unlikely to return to the higher levels experienced before the financial crisis. In addition, trade protectionism has become increasingly likely across many developed countries, and any increase in trade barriers would further reduce global trade growth and the demand for our containers.
Our customers may decide to lease fewer containers. Should shipping lines decide to buy a larger percentage of the containers they operate, our utilization rate and level of investment would decrease, resulting in decreased leasing revenues, increased storage costs, increased repositioning costs and lower growth.
We, like other suppliers of leased containers, are dependent upon decisions by shipping lines to lease rather than buy their container equipment. Should shipping lines decide to buy a larger percentage of the containers they operate, our utilization rate would decrease, resulting in decreased leasing revenues, increased storage costs and increased positioning costs. A decrease in the portion of leased containers operated by shipping lines would also reduce our investment opportunities and significantly constrain our growth. Most of the factors affecting the lease vs. buy decisions of our customers are outside of our control.
Market lease rates may decrease due to a decrease in new container prices, weak leasing demand, increased competition or other factors, resulting in reduced revenues, lower margins, and reduced profitability and cash flows.
Market leasing rates are typically a function of, among other things, new equipment prices (which are heavily influenced by steel prices in China), interest rates, the type and length of the lease, and the equipment supply and demand balance at a particular time and location. A decrease in leasing rates can have a materially adverse effect on our leasing revenues, profitability and cash flow.
A decrease in market leasing rates negatively impacts the leasing rates on both new container investments and the existing containers in our fleet. Most of our existing containers are on operating leases, which means that the lease term is shorter than the expected life of the container, so the lease rate we receive for the container is subject to change at the expiration of the current lease. As a result, during periods of low market lease rates, the average lease rate received for our containers is negatively impacted by both the addition of new containers at low lease rates as well as, and more significantly by, the turnover of existing containers from leases with higher lease rates to leases with lower lease rates.
We face significant credit risk. Lessee defaults adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flow by decreasing revenues and increasing storage, positioning, collection, recovery and lost equipment expenses. The risk of lessee defaults is currently elevated due to sustained excess vessel capacity and the resulting poor financial performance for most of our shipping line customers.
Our containers and chassis are leased to numerous customers. Lease rentals and other charges, as well as indemnification for damage to or loss of equipment, are payable under the leases and other arrangements by the lessees. Inherent in the nature of the leases and other arrangements for use of the equipment is the risk that once the lease is consummated, we may not receive, or may experience delay in receipt of, all of the amounts to be paid in respect of the equipment. A delay or diminution in amounts received

15


under the leases and other arrangements could adversely affect our business and financial prospects and our ability to make payments on debt. In addition, not all of our customers provide detailed financial information regarding their operations. As a result, customer credit risk is in part assessed on the basis of their reputation in the market, and there can be no assurance that they can or will fulfill their obligations under the contracts we enter into with them. Our customers could incur financial difficulties, or otherwise have difficulty making payments to us when due, for any number of factors that may be beyond our control and which we may be unable to anticipate.
The cash flow from our equipment, principally lease rentals, management fees and proceeds from the sale of owned equipment, is affected significantly by our ability to collect payments under leases and other arrangements for the use of the equipment and our ability to replace cash flows from terminating leases by re-leasing or selling equipment on favorable terms. All of these factors are subject to external economic conditions and performance by lessees and service providers that are beyond our control.
In addition, when lessees or sub-lessees of our containers and chassis default, we may fail to recover all of our equipment, and the containers and chassis we do recover may be returned in damaged condition or to locations where we will not be able to efficiently re-lease or sell them. As a result, we may have to repair and reposition these containers and chassis to other places where we can re-lease or sell them and we may lose lease revenues and incur additional operating expenses in repossessing, repositioning and storing the equipment.
We also often incur extra costs to remove existing liens when repossessing containers from a defaulting lessee. These costs typically arise when our lessee has also defaulted on payments owed to container terminals or depot facilities where the repossessed containers are located. In such cases, the terminal or depot facility will sometimes seek to have us repay a portion of the unpaid bills as a condition before releasing the containers back to us.
The likelihood of lessee defaults remains elevated. The container shipping industry has been suffering for several years from excess vessel capacity and low freight rates due to the combination of low trade growth and widespread ordering of mega vessels. Most of our customers generated financial losses in 2016 and many are burdened by high levels of debt.

We experienced a major lessee default in 2016 when Hanjin Shipping Co. ("Hanjin"), a large customer of ours filed for court protection on August 31, 2016, and immediately began a liquidation process. At that time, we had approximately 87,000 containers on lease to Hanjin with a net book value of $243.3 million. We recorded a loss of $29.7 million during the third quarter ended September 30, 2016, comprised of bad debt expense and a charge for costs not expected to be recovered due to deductibles in credit insurance policies. The impact of the Hanjin bankruptcy was significantly lessened by credit insurance policies in place during 2016 which covered the value of containers that are unrecoverable, cost incurred to recover containers and a portion of lost lease revenue. We have not been able to renew the credit insurance at levels considered to be economical and may not be able to obtain such insurance in the future.
Our balance sheet includes an allowance for doubtful accounts as well as an equipment reserve related to the expected costs of recovering and remarketing containers currently in the possession of customers that have either defaulted or that we believe currently present a significant risk of loss. However, we do not maintain a general equipment reserve for equipment on-hire under operating leases to performing customers. As a result, any major customer default could have a significant impact on our profitability upon such default. Such default could also have a material adverse effect on our business condition and financial prospects.
Our customer base highly is concentrated. A default from any of our largest customers, and especially our largest customer, would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and future prospects. In addition, a significant reduction in leasing business from any of our large customers could have a material adverse impact on demand for our containers and our financial performance.
Our five largest customers represented approximately 55% of our lease billings in 2017, with our single largest customer, CMA CGM, representing approximately 19% of lease billings, and our second largest customer Mediterranean Shipping Co., representing approximately 14% of lease billings, during this period. Furthermore, the shipping industry has been consolidating for a number of years, and further consolidation is expected and could increase the portion of our revenues that come from our largest customers. For example, the three largest Japanese shipping lines: Mitsui OSK, NYK and K-Line, have announced they will combine in a joint venture starting April 1, 2018. These three customers combined represented approximately 20% of our lease billings in 2017 and on a pro-forma basis would increase the lease billings from our five largest customers to approximately 59%.
Given the high concentration of our customer base, a default by any of our largest customers would result in a major reduction in our leasing revenue, large repossession expenses, potentially large lost equipment charges and a material adverse impact on our performance and financial condition. In addition, the loss or significant reduction in orders from any of our major customers could materially reduce the demand for our containers and result in lower leasing revenue, higher operating expenses and diminished growth prospects.

16


Credit insurance may not be available in the future to help defer the costs of future credit defaults.

We have historically maintained credit insurance to help mitigate the cost and risk of lessee defaults. Those insurance policies typically covered the value of containers that were unrecoverable, cost incurred to recover containers and a portion of lost lease revenue. This insurance coverage reduced our loss resulting from the default of Hanjin, by approximately $67.0 million.
However, in the aftermath of the Hanjin bankruptcy, the level of protection offered under this type of credit insurance has become much more limited and the cost of the more limited protection has increased substantially. We currently assess the cost and level of credit insurance protection offered to the company as uneconomic, and we have allowed this credit insurance coverage to lapse. Accordingly, we may be forced to incur all of the losses resulting from future lessee defaults, significantly increasing the likelihood that a lessee default would have a material adverse impact on our profitability and financial condition.
Used container sales prices have been volatile. During periods of low used container sale prices, such as we experienced for much of 2015 and 2016, used container sale prices can fall below our accounting residual values, leading to losses on the disposal of our equipment.
Although our revenues primarily depend upon equipment leasing, our profitability is also affected by the gains or losses we realize on the sale of used containers because, in the ordinary course of our business, we sell certain containers when they are returned by customers upon lease expiration. The volatility of the selling prices and gains or losses from the disposal of such equipment can be significant. Used container selling prices, which can vary substantially, depend upon, among other factors, the cost of new containers, the global supply and demand balance for containers, the location of the containers, the supply and demand balance for used containers at a particular location, the physical condition of the container, refurbishment needs, materials and labor costs and obsolescence of certain equipment or technology. Most of these factors are outside of our control.
Containers are typically sold if it is in our best interest to do so after taking into consideration local and global leasing and sale market conditions and the age, location and physical condition of the container. As these considerations vary, gains or losses on sale of equipment will also fluctuate and may be significant if we sell large quantities of containers.
Used container selling prices and the gains or losses that we have recognized from selling used containers have varied widely. Selling prices for used containers and disposal gains were exceptionally high from 2010 to 2012 due to a tight global supply and demand balance for containers. Used container prices gradually declined from 2012 through 2014, then dropped steeply in 2015 and 2016 to levels below our estimated residual values, resulting in significant losses on sale of leasing equipment in 2016. Used container sale prices rebounded in 2017, but there is no assurance this rebound in sale prices will be sustained. If disposal prices were to fall back below our residual values for an extended period, it would have a significantly negative impact on our financial performance and cash flow.
We face extensive competition in the container leasing industry.
We may be unable to compete favorably in the highly competitive container leasing and sales business. We compete with more than eight other major leasing companies, many smaller container lessors, manufacturers of container equipment, companies offering finance leases as distinct from operating leases, promoters of container ownership and leasing as a tax shelter investment, shipping lines which sometimes lease their excess container stocks, and suppliers of alternative types of equipment for freight transport. Some of these competitors may have greater financial resources and access to capital than us. Additionally, some of these competitors may, at times, accumulate a high volume of underutilized inventories of containers, which could lead to significant downward pressure on lease rates and margins.
Competition among container leasing companies depends upon many factors, including, among others, lease rates, lease terms (including lease duration, and drop-off and repair provisions), customer service, and the location, availability, quality and individual characteristics of equipment. The highly competitive nature of our industry may reduce our lease rates and margins and undermine our ability to maintain our current level of container utilization or achieve our growth plans. In general, competition from other leasing companies becomes more intense following a period of strong performance, such as we experienced in 2017. As a result, we expect increased competitive pressure.
We may incur future asset impairment charges.
An asset impairment charge may result from the occurrence of an adverse change in market conditions, unexpected adverse events or management decisions that impact our estimates of expected cash flows generated from our long-lived assets. We review our long-lived assets, including our container and chassis equipment, goodwill and other intangible assets for impairment, when events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying value of an asset may not be recoverable. We may be required to recognize asset impairment charges in the future as a result of reductions in demand for specific container and chassis types, a

17


weak economic environment, challenging market conditions, events related to particular customers or asset types, or as a result of asset or portfolio sale decisions by management.
The likelihood that we could incur asset impairment charges increases during periods of low new container prices, low market lease rates and low used container selling prices. These conditions existed in the industry for much of 2015 and 2016. While these factors improved in 2017, there is no assurance the improvement will last.
In addition, while used container selling prices are currently above our estimated residual values, they are extremely volatile and if disposal prices fall back below our residual values for an extended period, we would likely need to revise our estimates for residual values. Decreasing estimates for residual values would result in an immediate impairment charge on containers older than the estimated useful life in our depreciation calculations, and would result in increased depreciation expense for all of our containers in subsequent periods. Asset impairment charges could significantly impact our profitability and could potentially cause us to breach the financial covenants contained in some or all of our debt agreements. The impact of asset impairment charges and a potential covenant default could be severe.
Equipment trading results have been highly volatile and are subject to many factors outside of our control and are dependent upon a steady supply of used equipment.
We purchase used containers for resale from our shipping line customers and other container sellers. If the supply of equipment becomes limited because these sellers develop other means for disposing of their equipment or develop their own sales networks, we may not be able to purchase the inventory necessary to meet our goals, and our equipment trading revenues and our profitability could be negatively impacted.
Abrupt changes in sales prices on equipment purchased for resale could negatively affect our equipment trading margins.
We expect to purchase and sell containers opportunistically as part of our equipment trading segment. We purchase equipment for resale on the premise that we will be able to sell the inventory in a relatively short time frame. If sales prices rapidly deteriorate and we hold a large inventory of equipment that was purchased when prices for equipment were higher, then our gross margins could decline or become negative.

Financing may become more difficult to arrange and more expensive. If we are unable to finance capital expenditures efficiently, our business and growth plans will be adversely affected.
We expect to make capital investments to, among other things, maintain and expand the size of our container fleet. If we are unable to raise sufficient debt financing, we may be unable to achieve our targeted level of investment and growth. In addition, if our financing costs increase, we may be unable to pass along the higher cost of financing to our customers through high per diem lease rates, which would reduce the profit margin and investment returns on new container investments.
During the difficult market environment in 2015 and 2016, many lenders to the container leasing industry became more cautious, decreasing our sources of available debt financing and increasing our borrowing costs. Financing availability and costs improved in 2017, but there is no assurance this will continue. In addition, we are the largest container leasing exposure for many of our lenders, and the amount of incremental loans available from our existing lenders may become constrained due to single-name credit limitations.
In addition, our financing capacity could decrease, our financing costs and interest rates could increase, or our future access to the financial markets could be limited, as a result of other risks and contingencies, many of which are beyond our control, including: (i) the acceptance by credit markets of the structures and structural risks associated with our bank financing, private placement financing and asset-backed financing arrangements; (ii) the credit ratings provided by credit rating agencies for our corporate rating and those of our special purpose funding entities; (iii) third parties requiring changes in the terms and structure of our financing arrangements, including increased credit enhancements (such as lower advance rates) or required cash collateral and/or other liquid reserves; or (iv) changes in laws or regulations that negatively impact the terms on which the banks or other creditors may finance us. We may have more difficulty obtaining financing if lenders are unwilling to lend the amount of funds to us that they historically lent in total to TCIL and TAL. If we are unsuccessful in obtaining sufficient additional financing on acceptable terms, on a timely basis, or at all, such changes could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, interest costs, financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.

18


We have a substantial amount of debt outstanding on a consolidated basis and have significant debt service requirements. This increases the risk that adverse changes in our operating performance, our industry or the financial markets could severely diminish our financial performance and future business and growth prospects, and increases the chance that we might face insolvency due to a default on our debt obligations.
As of December 31, 2017, we had outstanding indebtedness of approximately $6.9 billion under our debt facilities. Total interest and debt expense for the year ended December 31, 2017 was $282.3 million. As of December 31, 2017, our net debt (total debt plus equipment purchases payable less cash) was equal to 78.8% of the net book value of our revenue earnings assets.
Our substantial amount of debt could have important consequences for investors, including:
making it more difficult for us to satisfy our obligations with respect to our debt facilities. Any failure to comply with such obligations, including a failure to make timely interest or principal payments, or a breach of financial or other restrictive covenants, could result in an event of default under the agreements governing such indebtedness, which could lead to, among other things, an acceleration of our indebtedness or foreclosure on the assets securing our indebtedness and which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, future prospects and solvency;
requiring us to dedicate a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations to make payments on our debt, thereby reducing funds available for operations, capital expenditures, future business opportunities and other purposes;
limiting our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the industry in which we operate;
limiting our ability to borrow additional funds, or to sell assets to raise funds, if needed, for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions or other purposes;
making it difficult for us to pay dividends on our common shares;
increasing our vulnerability to general adverse economic and industry conditions, including changes in interest rates; and
placing us at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors having less debt.
Additionally, we may not be able to refinance any of our indebtedness on commercially reasonable terms or at all. If we cannot refinance our indebtedness, we may have to take actions such as selling assets, seeking equity capital or reducing or delaying future capital expenditures or other business investments, which could have a material adverse impact on our growth rate, profitability and cash flow. Such actions, if necessary, may not be effected on commercially reasonable terms or at all. Our indebtedness will restrict our ability to sell assets and use the proceeds from such sales in certain ways.
Despite our substantial leverage, we and our subsidiaries may be able to incur additional indebtedness. This could further exacerbate the risks described above.
We may incur substantial additional indebtedness in the future. Although our current credit facilities contain restrictions on the incurrence of additional indebtedness, such restrictions are subject to a number of qualifications and exceptions, and, under certain circumstances, indebtedness incurred in compliance with such restrictions could be substantial. To the extent that new indebtedness is added to current debt levels, the risks described above would increase.
We will require a significant amount of cash to service and repay our outstanding indebtedness. This may limit our ability to fund future capital expenditures, pursue future business opportunities, make acquisitions or return cash to our shareholders.
Our high level of indebtedness requires us to make large interest and principal payments. These debt service payments will represent a significant portion of our cash flow, and if our operating cash flow decreases in the future, or if it becomes more difficult for us to arrange financing to refinance existing debt facilities, our ability to finance capital expenditures, pursue future business opportunities or return cash to our shareholders could be severely limited.

19


Our credit facilities impose significant operating and financial restrictions, which may prevent us from pursuing certain business opportunities and taking certain actions.
Our asset-backed securities, institutional notes and other credit facilities impose, and the terms of any future indebtedness may impose, significant operating, financial and other restrictions on the Company and our subsidiaries. These restrictions will limit or prohibit, among other things, our ability to:
incur additional indebtedness;
pay dividends on or redeem or repurchase our shares;
issue additional share capital;
make loans and investments;
create liens;
sell certain assets or merge with or into other companies;
enter into certain transactions with our shareholders and affiliates;
cause our subsidiaries to make dividends, distributions and other payments to us; and
otherwise conduct necessary corporate activities.
These restrictions could adversely affect our ability to finance our future operations or capital needs and pursue available business opportunities. A breach of any of these restrictions could result in a default in respect of the related indebtedness. If a default occurs, the relevant lenders could elect to declare the indebtedness, together with accrued interest and fees, to be immediately due and payable and proceed against any collateral securing that indebtedness, which under certain circumstances could constitute substantially all of our container assets.
Environmental regulations may result in equipment obsolescence or require substantial investments to retrofit existing equipment. Additionally, environmental concerns are leading to significant design changes for new containers that have not been extensively tested, which increases the risks we will face from potential technical problems.
Many countries, including the United States, restrict, prohibit or otherwise regulate the use of chemical refrigerants due to their ozone depleting and global warming effects. Our refrigerated containers currently use R134A or 404A refrigerant. While R134A and 404A do not contain hydrochlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which have been restricted since 1995, the EU has instituted regulations beginning in 2011 to phase out the use of R134A in automobile air conditioning systems due to concern that the release of R134A into the atmosphere may contribute to global warming. While the EU regulations do not currently restrict the use of R134A or 404A in refrigerated containers or trailers, it has been proposed that, beginning in 2025, R134A and 404A usage in refrigerated containers will be banned, although the final decision has not yet been made. Further, certain manufacturers of refrigerated containers, including the largest manufacturer of cooling machines for refrigerated containers, have begun testing units that utilize alternative refrigerants, such as R513a, as well as natural refrigerants such as propane and carbon dioxide, that may have less global warming potential than R134A and 404A. If future regulations prohibit the use or servicing of containers using R134A or 404A refrigerants, we could be forced to incur large retrofitting expenses. In addition, refrigerated containers that are not retrofitted may become difficult to lease, command lower rental rates and disposal prices, or may have to be scrapped.

Historically, the foam insulation in the walls of intermodal refrigerated containers required the use of a blowing agent that contains CFCs, specifically HCFC-141b. The manufacturers producing our refrigerated containers have eliminated the use of this blowing agent in the manufacturing process, but a large number of our refrigerated containers manufactured prior to 2014 contain these CFCs. The EU prohibits the import and the placing on the market in the EU of intermodal containers with insulation made with HCFC-141b (“EU regulation”). However, we believe international conventions governing free movement of intermodal containers allow the use of such intermodal refrigerated containers in the EU if they have been admitted into EU countries on temporary customs admission. Each country in the EU has its own individual and different regulations, and we have procedures in place that we believe comply with the relevant EU and country regulations. However, if such intermodal refrigerated containers exceed their temporary customs admission period and/or their custom admissions status changes (e.g., should such container be off-hired) and such intermodal refrigerated containers are deemed placed on the market in the EU, or if our procedures are deemed not to comply with EU or a country’s regulation, we could be subject to fines and penalties. Also, if future international conventions or regulations prohibit the use or servicing of containers with foam insulation that utilized this blowing agent during the manufacturing process, we could be forced to incur large retrofitting expenses and those containers that are not retrofitted may become more difficult to lease and command lower rental rates and disposal prices.

20


An additional environmental concern affecting our operations relates to the construction materials used in our dry containers. The floors of dry containers are plywood, usually made from tropical hardwoods. Due to concerns regarding the de-forestation of tropical rain forests and climate change, many countries which have been the source of these hardwoods have implemented severe restrictions on the cutting and export of these woods. Accordingly, container manufacturers have switched a significant portion of production to more readily available alternatives such as birch, bamboo, and other farm grown wood species. Container users are also evaluating alternative designs that would limit the amount of plywood required and are also considering possible synthetic materials to replace the plywood. These new woods or other alternatives have not proven their durability over the typical 13 to 15 year life of a dry container, and if they cannot perform as well as the hardwoods have historically performed, the future repair and operating costs for these containers could be significantly higher and the useful life of the containers may be decreased.
Over the last two years, for environmental reasons, container manufacturers have replaced solvent-based paint systems with water-based paint systems for dry container production. Water-based paint systems require more time and care for proper application, and there is an increased risk that the paint will not adhere properly to the steel for the expected useful life of the containers. Poor paint coverage leads to premature rusting, increased maintenance cost over the life of the container and could result in a shorter useful life. If water-based paint applications cannot perform as well as the solvent-based applications have historically performed, the future repair and operating costs for these containers could be significantly higher and the useful life of the containers may be decreased.
Litigation to enforce our leases and recover our containers has inherent uncertainties that can be increased by the location of our containers in jurisdictions that have less developed legal systems.
While almost all of our lease agreements are governed by New York or California law and provide for the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located in the State of New York or the courts located in San Francisco, California or arbitration in San Francisco, California, the ability to enforce the lessees’ obligations under the leases and other arrangements for use of the containers often is subject to applicable laws in the jurisdiction in which enforcement is sought. It is not possible to predict, with any degree of certainty, the jurisdictions in which enforcement proceedings may be commenced. Our containers are manufactured primarily in China, and a substantial portion of our containers are leased out of Asia, primarily China, and are used by our customers in a wide range of global trades. Litigation and enforcement proceedings have inherent uncertainties in any jurisdiction and are expensive. These uncertainties are enhanced in countries that have less developed legal systems where the interpretation of laws and regulations is not consistent, may be influenced by factors other than legal merits and may be cumbersome, time-consuming and more expensive. For example, repossession from defaulting lessees may be difficult and more expensive in jurisdictions whose laws do not confer the same security interests and rights to creditors and lessors as those in the United States and where the legal systems are not as well developed. Additionally, even if we are successful in obtaining judgments against defaulting customers, these customers may have limited owned assets and/or heavily encumbered assets and the collection and enforcement of a monetary judgment against them may be unsuccessful. As a result, the remedies available and the relative success and expedience of collection and enforcement proceedings with respect to the containers in various jurisdictions cannot be predicted.
The success of our recovery efforts for defaulted leases has been hampered by undeveloped creditor protections and legal systems in a number of countries. In these situations, we experienced an increase in average recovery costs per unit and a decrease in the percentage of containers recovered in default situations primarily due to excessive charges applied to our containers by the depot or terminal facilities that had been storing the containers for the defaulted lessee. In these cases, the payments demanded by the depot or terminal operators often significantly exceeded the amount of storage costs that the Company would have reasonably expected to pay for the release of the containers. However, legal remedies were limited in many of the jurisdictions where the containers were being stored, and we were sometimes forced to accept the excessive storage charges to gain control of our containers. If the number and size of defaults increases in the future, and if a large percentage of the defaulted containers are being stored in countries with less developed legal systems, losses resulting from recovery payments and unrecovered containers could be large and our profitability significantly reduced.

Manufacturers of equipment may be unwilling or unable to honor manufacturer warranties covering defects in our equipment.

We obtain warranties from the manufacturers of equipment that we purchase. When defects in the containers occur, we work with the manufacturers to identify and rectify the problems. However, there is no assurance that manufacturers will be willing or able to honor warranty obligations. If defects are discovered in containers that are not covered by manufacturer warranties, we could be required to expend significant amounts of money to repair the containers, the useful lives of the containers could be shortened and the value of the containers reduced.

A shortage of mature tropical hardwood has forced manufacturers to use younger and alternative species of wood to make container floors. Manufacturers have switched a significant portion of production to more readily available alternatives such as birch, bamboo, bamboo-wood combined panels, and other farm grown wood species. Container users are also evaluating alternative designs that would limit the amount of plywood required and are also considering possible synthetic materials to replace the

21


plywood. These new woods or other alternatives have not proven their durability over the typical 13 to 15 year life of a dry container. It is likely that the number and magnitude of warranty claims related to premature floor failures will increase.

Another example relates to the Chinese Central Government imposing Volatile Organic Compound ("VOC") and Air Quality standards in South China in July 2016 and in all of China in April 2017. As a result of this standard, manufacturers changed from solvent-based paint systems to water-based paint systems. While water-based paint systems have been used by other manufacturing industries for many years, the systems have not proven their durability over the typical 13 to 15 year life of a dry container in a marine environment. It is possible that the number and magnitude of warranty claims related to premature paint failures will increase.

If container manufacturers do not honor warranties covering these failures, or if the failures occur after the warranty period expires, we could be required to expend significant amounts of money to repair or sell containers earlier than expected. This could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition.
Changes in market price or availability of containers in China could adversely affect our ability to maintain our supply of containers.
The vast majority of intermodal containers are currently manufactured in China, and we currently purchase substantially all of our dry containers, special containers and refrigerated containers from manufacturers based there. In addition, the container manufacturing industry in China is highly concentrated. In the event that it were to become more expensive for us to procure containers in China because of further consolidation among container suppliers, a dispute with one of our manufacturers, increased tariffs imposed by the United States or other governments or for any other reason, we would have to seek alternative sources of supply. We may not be able to make alternative arrangements quickly enough to meet our equipment needs, and the alternative arrangements may increase our costs, reduce our profitability and make us less competitive in the market.
We may incur significant costs associated with relocation of leased equipment.
When lessees return equipment to locations where supply exceeds demand, containers are routinely repositioned to higher demand areas. Positioning expenses vary depending on geographic location, distance, freight rates and other factors. Positioning expenses can be significant if a large portion of our containers are returned to locations with weak demand.
We currently seek to limit the number of containers that can be returned to areas where demand for such containers is not expected to be strong. However, future market conditions may not enable us to continue such practices. In addition, we may not be successful in accurately anticipating which port locations will be characterized by weak or strong demand in the future, and current contracts will not provide much protection against positioning costs if ports that are expected to be strong demand ports turn out to be surplus container ports when the equipment is returned to such ports upon lease expiration. In particular, we could incur significant positioning costs in the future if trade flows change from net exports to net imports in locations such as the main ports in China that are currently considered to be high demand locations and where our leases typically allow large numbers of containers to be returned.
Sustained Asian economic, social or political instability could reduce demand for leasing.
Many of the shipping lines to which we lease containers are entities domiciled in Asian countries. In addition, many of our customers are substantially dependent upon shipments of goods exported from Asia. From time to time, there have been economic disruptions, financial turmoil and political instability in this region. If these events were to occur again in the future, they could adversely affect our customers and lead to reduced demand for our containers or otherwise have an adverse effect on market conditions and our performance.
It may become more expensive for us to store our off-hire containers.
We are dependent on third-party depot operators to repair and store our equipment in port areas throughout the world. In many of these locations the land occupied by these depots is increasingly being considered as prime real estate. Accordingly, some depots are seeking to increase the rates we pay to store our containers, and some local communities are increasing restrictions on depot operations which increase their costs of operation and in some cases force depots to relocate to sites further from the port areas. Additionally, depots in prime locations may become filled to capacity based on market conditions and may refuse additional containers due to space constraints. This could require the Company to enter into higher-cost storage agreements with third-party depot operators in order to accommodate our customers’ turn-in requirements and could result in increased costs for the Company. If these changes affect a large number of our third-party depots, the cost of maintaining and storing our off-hire containers could increase significantly.

22


We rely on our information technology systems to conduct our business. If there are disruptions and these systems fail to adequately perform their functions, or if we experience an interruption in our operation, our business and financial results could be adversely affected.
The efficient operation of our business is highly dependent on our information technology systems including our equipment tracking and billing systems and our customer interface systems. These systems allow customers to place pick-up and drop-off orders, view current inventory and check contractual terms in effect with respect to any given container lease agreement. These systems also process and track transactions, such as container pick-ups, drop-offs and repairs, and bill customers for the use of and damage to our equipment. If our information technology systems are damaged or an interruption is caused by a computer systems failure, viruses, fire, natural disasters or power loss, the disruption to our normal business operations and impact on our costs, competitiveness and financial results could be significant.
Security breaches and other disruptions could compromise our information technology systems and expose us to liability, which could cause our business and reputation to suffer.
In the ordinary course of our business, we will collect and store sensitive data on our systems and networks, including our proprietary business information and that of our customers and suppliers, and personally identifiable information of our customers and employees. The secure storage, processing, maintenance and transmission of this information is critical to our operations. Despite the security measures we employ, our information technology systems and networks may be vulnerable to attacks by hackers or breached due to employee error, malfeasance or other disruptions. Any such breach could compromise such systems and networks and the information stored therein could be accessed, publicly disclosed and/or lost or stolen. Any such access, disclosure or other loss of information could result in legal claims or proceedings, liability under laws that protect the privacy of personal information, disruption to our operations, damage to our reputation and/or loss of competitive position.
A number of key personnel are critical to the success of our business.
We have senior executives and other management level employees with extensive industry experience. We rely on this knowledge and experience in our strategic planning and in our day-to-day business operations. Our success depends in large part upon our ability to retain our senior management, the loss of one or more of whom could have a material adverse effect on our business. Our success also depends on our ability to retain our experienced sales force and technical personnel as well as to recruit new skilled sales, marketing and technical personnel. Competition for experienced managers in our industry can be intense. If we fail to retain and recruit the necessary personnel, our business and our ability to retain customers and provide acceptable levels of customer service could suffer.
The international nature of the container industry exposes us to numerous risks.
We are subject to risks inherent in conducting business across national boundaries, any one of which could adversely impact our business. These risks include:
regional or local economic downturns;
changes in governmental policy or regulation;
restrictions on the transfer of funds into or out of countries in which we operate;
compliance with U.S. Treasury sanctions regulations restricting doing business with certain nations or specially designated nationals;
import and export duties and quotas;
domestic and foreign customs and tariffs;
international incidents;
military conflicts;
government instability;
nationalization of foreign assets;
government protectionism;
compliance with export controls, including those of the U.S. Department of Commerce;
compliance with import procedures and controls, including those of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security;
potentially negative consequences from changes in tax laws;

23


requirements relating to withholding taxes on remittances and other payments by subsidiaries;
labor or other disruptions at key ports;
difficulty in staffing and managing widespread operations;
difficulty in registering intellectual property or inadequate intellectual property protection in foreign jurisdictions; and
restrictions on our ability to own or operate subsidiaries, make investments or acquire new businesses in these jurisdictions.
Any one or more of these factors could impair our current or future international operations and, as a result, harm our overall business.
The lack of an international title registry for containers increases the risk of ownership disputes.
There is no internationally recognized system for recording or filing to evidence our title to containers nor is there an internationally recognized system for filing security interests in containers. Although this has not occurred to date, the lack of a title recordation system with respect to containers could result in disputes with lessees, end-users, or third parties who may improperly claim ownership of the containers.
Certain liens may arise on our containers.
Depot operators, container terminals, repairmen and transporters may come into possession of our containers from time to time and have sums due to them from the lessees or sublessees of the containers. In the event of nonpayment of those charges by the lessees or sublessees, we may be delayed in, or entirely barred from, taking possession of our containers, or we may be required to make payments or incur expenses to discharge such liens on the containers.
For example, in the aftermath of the Hanjin bankruptcy, we were forced to make substantial payments to container terminals, container depots and other parties who took possession of our containers previously on-hire to Hanjin and demanded to be reimbursed for payments owed to them by Hanjin as a condition for the release of our containers.
Changes in financial accounting standards or practices may cause adverse, unexpected financial reporting fluctuations and affect our reported operating results.
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") are subject to interpretation by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”), the SEC and various bodies formed to promulgate and interpret appropriate accounting principles. A change in accounting standards or practices can have a significant effect on our reported results and may even affect our reporting of transactions completed before the change is effective. New accounting pronouncements and varying interpretations of accounting pronouncements have occurred and may occur in the future. Changes to existing rules or the questioning of current practices may materially adversely affect our reported financial results or the way in which we conduct our business.

Because of our significant international operations, we could be materially adversely affected by violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the U.K. Bribery Act and similar anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws and regulations.
We operate on a global basis, with the vast majority of our revenue generated from leasing our containers to lessees for use in international trade. We are also dependent on third-party depot operators to repair and store our containers in port locations throughout the world. Our business operations are subject to anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws and regulations, including restrictions imposed by the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”), as well as the United Kingdom Bribery Act of 2010 (the “U.K. Bribery Act”). The FCPA, the U.K. Bribery Act and similar anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws in other jurisdictions generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries and agents from making improper payments to government officials or any other persons for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Any determination of a violation or an investigation into violations of the FCPA or the U.K. Bribery Act or similar anti-corruption and anti-bribery laws could have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.
A failure to comply with United States Treasury and other economic sanction laws and regulations and export control laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. We may be unable to ensure that our agents and/or customers comply with applicable sanctions and export control laws.
We face several risks inherent in conducting our business internationally, including compliance with applicable economic sanctions laws and regulations, such as laws and regulations administered by the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”), the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Commerce. We must also comply with all

24


applicable export control laws and regulations of the United States (including but not limited to the U.S. Export Administration Regulations) and other countries. Any determination of a violation or an investigation into violations of export controls or economic sanctions laws and regulations could result in significant criminal or civil fines, penalties or other sanctions and repercussions, including reputational harm that could materially affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.
We may incur increased costs associated with the implementation of security regulations, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
We may be subject to regulations promulgated in various countries, including the United States, seeking to protect the integrity of international commerce and prevent the use of containers for international terrorism or other illicit activities. For example, the Container Safety Initiative, the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism and Operation Safe Commerce are among the programs administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that are designed to enhance security for cargo moving throughout the international transportation system by identifying existing vulnerabilities in the supply chain and developing improved methods for ensuring the security of containerized cargo entering and leaving the United States. Moreover, the International Convention for Safe Containers, 1972 (CSC), as amended, adopted by the International Maritime Organization, applies to containers and seeks to maintain a high level of safety of human life in the transport and handling of containers by providing uniform international safety regulations. As these regulations develop and change, we may incur increased compliance costs due to the acquisition of new, regulation compliant containers and/or the adaptation of existing containers to meet any new requirements imposed by such regulations. Additionally, certain companies are currently developing or may in the future develop products designed to enhance the security of containers transported in international commerce. Regardless of the existence of current or future government regulations mandating the safety standards of intermodal cargo containers, our competitors may adopt such products or our customers may require that we adopt such products in the conduct of our container leasing business. In responding to such market pressures, we may incur increased costs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.
Terrorist attacks could negatively impact our operations and profitability and may expose us to liability and reputational damage.
Terrorist attacks may negatively affect our operations and profitability. Such attacks have contributed to economic instability in the United States, Europe and elsewhere, and further acts of terrorism, violence or war could similarly affect world trade and the industries in which we and our customers operate. In addition, terrorist attacks or hostilities may directly impact ports our containers enter and exit, depots, our physical facilities or those of our suppliers or customers and could impact our sales and our supply chain. A severe disruption to the worldwide ports system and flow of goods could result in a reduction in the level of international trade and lower demand for our containers. The consequences of any terrorist attacks or hostilities are unpredictable, and we may not be able to foresee events that could have an adverse effect on our operations.
It is also possible that one of our containers could be involved in a terrorist attack. Although our lease agreements typically require our customers to indemnify us against all damages and liabilities arising out of the use of our containers, and we carry insurance to potentially offset any costs in the event that our customer indemnifications prove to be insufficient, the insurance does not cover certain types of terrorist attacks, and we may not be fully protected from liability or the reputational damage that could arise from a terrorist attack which utilizes one of our containers.
Environmental liability may adversely affect our business and financial situation.
We are subject to federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, including those governing the discharge of pollutants to air and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes and the cleanup of contaminated sites. We could incur substantial costs, including cleanup costs, fines and third-party claims for property damage and personal injury, as a result of violations of or liabilities under environmental laws and regulations in connection with our current or historical operations. Under some environmental laws in the United States and certain other countries, the owner of a leased container may be liable for environmental damage, cleanup or other costs in the event of a spill or discharge of material from a container without regard to the owner’s fault. We have not yet experienced any such claims, although we cannot assure you that we will not be subject to such claims in the future. Liability insurance policies, including ours, usually exclude claims for environmental damage. Some of our lessees may have separate insurance coverage for environmental damage, but we cannot assure you that any such policies would cover or otherwise offset any liability we may have as the owner of a leased container.
Changes in U.S. tax rules as part of newly enacted U.S. tax legislation could negatively impact our income tax provisions or future cash tax payments.
Our subsidiaries record U.S. tax provision in their financial statements. Certain of our U.S. subsidiaries currently do not pay meaningful U.S. income taxes primarily due to the benefit they currently receive from accelerated tax depreciation of their container

25


investments. However, the recent changes in U.S. tax law passed on December 22, 2017 limiting the deductibility of interest expense above certain levels could increase our taxable income and lead to higher cash tax payments in the future.
A reduction in our level of continuing investment in our U.S. subsidiaries or future U.S. tax rule changes may negatively impact our income tax provisions or future cash tax payments.
Our U.S. subsidiaries record a tax provision in their financial statements. Certain of these subsidiaries currently do not pay, any meaningful U.S. income taxes primarily due to the benefit they currently receive, and we expect they will continue to receive, from accelerated tax depreciation of their container investments. A change in the rules governing the tax depreciation for these U.S. subsidiaries’ containers, in particular, a change that increases the period over which they must depreciate their containers for tax purposes, could reduce or eliminate this tax benefit and significantly increase these U.S. subsidiaries’ cash tax payments.
In addition, even under current tax rules, these U.S. subsidiaries will need to make ongoing investments in new containers in order to continue to benefit from the tax deferral generated by accelerated tax depreciation. If these U.S. subsidiaries are unable to do so, the favorable tax treatment from accelerated tax depreciation would diminish, and they could face significantly increased cash tax payments.
In addition, our net deferred tax liability balance includes a deferred tax asset for U.S. federal and various states resulting from net operating loss carryforwards. A reduction to our future earnings, which will lower taxable income, may require the Company to record a charge against earnings in the form of a valuation allowance, if it is determined that it is more-likely-than-not that some or all of the loss carryforwards will not be realized.
Our U.S. investors could suffer adverse tax consequences if we are characterized as a passive foreign investment company for U.S. federal income tax purposes.
Based upon the nature of our business activities, we may be classified as a passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”) for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Such characterization could result in adverse U.S. tax consequences for direct or indirect U.S. investors in our common shares. For example, if we are a PFIC, our U.S. investors could become subject to increased tax liabilities under U.S. tax laws and regulations and could become subject to burdensome reporting requirements. The determination of whether or not we are a PFIC is made on an annual basis and depends on the composition of our income and assets from time to time. Specifically, for any taxable year, we will be classified as a PFIC for U.S. tax purposes if either:
75% or more of the our gross income in a taxable year is passive income; or
the average percentage of our assets (which includes cash) by value in a taxable year which produce or are held for the production of passive income is at least 50%.
In applying these tests, we are treated as owning or generating directly our pro rata share of the assets and income of any corporation in which we own at least 25% by value. If you are a U.S. holder and we are a PFIC for any taxable year during which you own our common shares, you could be subject to adverse U.S. tax consequences. In such a case, under the PFIC rules, unless a U.S. holder is permitted to and does elect otherwise under the Code, such U.S. holder would be subject to special tax rules with respect to excess distributions and any gain from the disposition of our common shares. In particular, the excess distribution or gain will be treated as if it had been recognized ratably over the holder’s holding period for our common shares, and amounts allocated to prior years starting with our first taxable year during which we were a PFIC will be subject to U.S. federal income tax at the highest prevailing tax rates on ordinary income for that year plus an interest charge.
Based on the composition of our income, valuation of our assets and our election to treat certain of our subsidiaries as disregarded entities for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we do not expect that we should be treated as a PFIC for the our current taxable year or for the foreseeable future. However, because the PFIC determination in our case is made by taking into account all of the relevant facts and circumstances regarding our business without the benefit of clearly defined bright line rules, it is possible that we may be a PFIC for any taxable year or that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) may challenge our determination concerning our PFIC status.
We may become subject to unanticipated tax liabilities that may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.
We are a Bermuda company, and we believe that the income derived from our operations will not be subject to tax in Bermuda, which currently has no corporate income tax. We further believe that a significant portion of the income derived from our operations will not be subject to tax in many other countries in which our customers or containers are located. However, this belief is based on the anticipated nature and conduct of our business, which may change. It is also based on our understanding of the tax laws of the countries in which our customers use containers. The tax positions we take in various jurisdictions are subject to review and possible challenge by taxing authorities and to possible changes in law that may have retroactive effect.
Our results of operations could be materially and adversely affected if we become subject to a significant amount of unanticipated tax liabilities.

26


The calculation of our income tax expense requires significant judgment and the use of estimates.
We periodically assess our tax positions based on current tax developments, including enacted statutory, judicial and regulatory guidance. In analyzing our overall tax position, consideration is given to the amount and timing of recognizing income tax liabilities and benefits. In applying the tax and accounting guidance to the facts and circumstances, income tax balances are adjusted as we consider appropriate through the income tax provision. We account for income tax positions on uncertainties by recognizing the effect of income tax positions only if those positions are more-likely-than-not of being sustained, and maintains reserves for income tax positions we believe are not more-likely-than-not of being sustained. Recognized income tax positions are measured at the largest amount that is greater than 50% likely of being realized. However, due to the significant judgment required in estimating those reserves, actual amounts paid, if any, could differ significantly from those estimates.
Fluctuations in foreign exchange rates could reduce our profitability.
While the majority of our revenues and costs are billed in U.S. dollars, our operations and used container sales in locations outside of the U.S. have exposure to foreign currency. Most of our non-U.S. dollar transactions are individually small amounts and in various denominations and thus are not suitable for cost-effective hedging. Fluctuations in the value of foreign currencies relative to the U.S. dollar can negatively impact our cash flow and profitability.

In addition, trade growth and the direction of trade flows can be influenced by large changes in relative currency values, potentially leading to decreased demand for our containers or increased container positioning costs.
Most of our equipment fleet is manufactured in China. Although the purchase price is typically in U.S. dollars, our manufacturers pay labor and other costs in the local currency, the Chinese yuan. To the extent that our manufacturers’ costs change due to changes in the valuation of the Chinese yuan, the dollar price we pay for equipment could be affected.
Our operations could be affected by natural or man-made events in the locations in which our customers or suppliers operate.
We have operations in locations subject to severe weather conditions, natural disasters, the outbreak of contagious disease, or man-made incidents such as chemical explosions, any of which could disrupt our operations. In addition, our suppliers and customers also have operations in such locations. For example, in 2011, the northern region of Japan experienced a severe earthquake followed by a series of tsunamis resulting in material damage to the Japanese economy. In 2015, a chemical explosion and fire in the port of Tianjin, China damaged or destroyed a small number of our containers and disrupted operations in the port. Similarly, outbreaks of pandemic or contagious diseases, such as H1N1 (swine) flu and the Ebola virus, could significantly reduce the demand for international shipping or could prevent our containers from being discharged in the affected areas or in other locations after having visited the affected areas. Any future natural or man-made disasters or health concerns in the world where we have business operations could lead to disruption of the regional and global economies, which could result in a decrease in demand for leased containers.
Increases in the cost of or the lack of availability of contingent liability, physical damage and directors' and officers’ liability insurance could increase our risk exposure and reduce our profitability.
Our lessees and depots are required to maintain all risks physical damage insurance, comprehensive general liability insurance and to indemnify us against loss. We also maintain our own contingent liability insurance and off-hire physical damage insurance. Nevertheless, lessees’ and depots’ insurance or indemnities and our future insurance may not fully protect us. The cost of such insurance may increase or become prohibitively expensive and such insurance may not continue to be available.
We also maintain directors' and officers' liability insurance. Potential new accounting standards and new corporate governance regulations may make it more difficult and more expensive for us to obtain directors and officers liability insurance. In addition, we may be required to incur substantial costs to maintain existing or increased levels of coverage or such coverage may not continue to be available, which would make it more difficult and expensive to attract and retain our directors and officers.
Labor activism and unrest, or failure to maintain satisfactory labor relations, could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Labor activism and unrest could materially adversely affect our operations and thereby materially adversely affect our financial condition and prospects. We may experience labor unrest, activism, disputes or actions in the future, some of which may be significant and could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

27


The price of our common shares has been highly volatile and may decline regardless of our operating performance.
The trading price of our common shares has been and is likely to remain highly volatile. Factors affecting the trading price of our common shares may include:
variations in our financial results;
changes in financial estimates or investment recommendations by securities analysts following our business;
the public's response to our press releases, other public announcements and filings with the SEC;
changes in accounting standards, policies, guidance or interpretations or principles;
future sales of common shares by our directors, officers and significant shareholders;
announcements of technological innovations or enhanced or new products by us or our competitors;
the failure to achieve operating results consistent with securities analysts’ projections;
the operating and stock price performance of other companies that investors may deem comparable to us;
changes in our dividend policy and share repurchase programs;
fluctuations in the worldwide equity markets;
recruitment or departure of key personnel;
failure to timely address changing customer preferences;
broad market and industry factors; and
other events or factors, including those resulting from global instability including political instability, the perceived or actual threat of impending natural disasters, coups, missile launches, terrorism or war, as well as the actual occurrence of such events or responses to such events.
In addition, if the market for intermodal equipment leasing company stocks or the stock market in general experiences a loss of investor confidence, the trading price of our common shares could decline for reasons unrelated to our business or financial results. The trading price of our common shares might also decline in reaction to events that affect other companies in our industry even if these events do not directly affect us.
If securities analysts do not publish research or reports about our business or if they downgrade our shares, the price of our common shares could decline.
The trading market for our common shares relies in part on the research and reports that industry or financial analysts publish about us, our business or our industry. We have no influence or control over these analysts. Furthermore, if one or more of the analysts who do cover our downgrades our shares, the price of our shares could decline. If one or more of these analysts ceases coverage of us, we could lose visibility in the market, which in turn could cause our share price to decline.
Our failure to comply with required public company corporate governance and financial reporting practices and regulations could materially and adversely impact our financial condition, operating results and the price of our common shares. Further, our internal controls over financial reporting may not detect all errors or omissions in the financial statements. The risk of non-compliance and reporting errors is currently elevated due to our recent Merger.
We are subject to the regulatory compliance and reporting requirements applicable to us as a public company, including those issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") and the New York Stock Exchange (the "NYSE"). Failure to meet these requirements may lead to adverse regulatory consequences, and could lead to defaults under our loan agreements or a negative reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements. If we fail to maintain effective controls and procedures, we may be unable to provide the required financial information in a timely and reliable manner or otherwise comply with the standards applicable to us as a public company. Any failure to timely provide the required financial information could materially and adversely impact our financial condition and the market value of our common shares. Furthermore, testing and maintaining internal controls can divert our management’s attention from other matters that are important to our business.

28


The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, as amended (the “Sarbanes-Oxley Act”), requires that we maintain effective internal controls for financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. If we do not maintain compliance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, or if we or our independent registered public accounting firm identifies deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses, we could suffer a loss of investor confidence in the reliability of our financial statements, which could cause the market price of our shares to decline. We can also be subject to sanctions or investigations by the NYSE, the SEC or other regulatory authorities for failure to comply with public company corporate governance and financial reporting practices and regulations.
Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires an annual management assessment of the effectiveness of internal controls over financial reporting and commencing in 2017 a report by our independent registered public accounting firm on the effectiveness on such internal controls. If we fail to maintain the adequacy of internal controls over financial accounting, we may not be able to conclude on an ongoing basis that we have effective internal controls over financial reporting in accordance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and related regulations. No system of internal controls can provide absolute assurance that the financial statements are accurate and free of material errors. As a result, the risk exists that our internal controls may not detect all errors or omissions in the financial statements.
In addition, our Merger integration has created significant operational challenges and has required our remaining staff to learn new processes and procedures, and as a result, there is currently increased risk that we may fail to comply with regulatory or reporting requirements, or that we may have a reporting error or some other control deficiency that could make our financial statements misleading and could be deemed to be a material weakness under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. We expect the risk of non-compliance, reporting errors and control weaknesses will remain elevated for an extended period of time.
Changes in laws and regulations could adversely affect our business.
All aspects of our business, including leasing, pricing, sales, litigation and intellectual property rights are subject to extensive legislation and regulation. Changes in applicable federal and state laws and agency regulations, as well as the laws and regulations of foreign jurisdictions, could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Concentration of ownership among our significant shareholders may prevent new investors from influencing significant corporate decisions and may result in conflicts of interest.
As of December 31, 2017, certain affiliates of Warburg Pincus LLC ("Warburg Pincus") beneficially owned approximately 11.6% of our outstanding common shares, certain affiliates of Vestar Capital Partners, Inc. ("Vestar") beneficially owned approximately 13.2% of our outstanding common shares, and an affiliate of Bharti Global Limited ("Bharti") beneficially owned approximately 9.8% of our outstanding common shares. As of such date, Warburg Pincus, Vestar and Bharti (collectively, the "Sponsor Shareholders"), in the aggregate, beneficially owned approximately 34.6% of our outstanding common shares. Under the shareholder agreements with the Sponsor Shareholders (the "Sponsor Shareholder Agreements"), Warburg Pincus and Bharti (collectively, the "Warburg Shareholder Group") have the ongoing right to designate two individuals to serve on our Board, and Vestar has the ongoing right to designate one individual to serve on our Board, in each case subject to the approval by our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of any individuals so designated. The rights of the Warburg Shareholder Group and Vestar to designate individuals to serve on our Board are subject to reduction as their respective ownership of our common shares declines. The Sponsor Shareholders Agreements provide certain restrictions on the Sponsor Shareholders, which are further described in the Registration Statement on Form S-4 that we filed with the SEC on December 24, 2015, as amended (the "Form S-4"), under “Related Agreements - The Sponsor Shareholders Agreements.” However, the concentration of influence in the Sponsor Shareholders may delay, deter or prevent acts that would be favored by our other shareholders, who may have interests different from those of the Sponsor Shareholders. For example, the Sponsor Shareholders could delay or prevent an acquisition, merger or amalgamation deemed beneficial to other shareholders, or cause, or seek to cause, us to take courses of action that, in their judgment, could enhance their investment in us, but which might involve risks to our other shareholders or adversely affect us or our other shareholders. Our Sponsor Shareholders may be able to cause or prevent a change in control or a change in the composition of our Board and could preclude any unsolicited acquisition of us. This may have the effect of delaying, preventing or deterring a change in control. In addition, this significant concentration of share ownership may materially adversely affect the trading price of our common shares because investors often perceive disadvantages in owning common shares in companies with significant concentrations of ownership.
Further, our bye-laws provide that we, on behalf of our subsidiaries, renounce any interest or expectancy we or our subsidiaries may have in (or in being offered an opportunity to participate in) business opportunities that are from time to time presented to any of Warburg Pincus, Vestar, and Bharti and their respective affiliated funds, or any of their respective officers, directors, agents, shareholders, members, partners, affiliates and subsidiaries (other than us and our subsidiaries), even if the opportunity is one that we or our subsidiaries might reasonably be deemed to have pursued or had the ability or desire to pursue if granted the opportunity to do so. Our bye-laws provide that no such person will be liable to us or any of our subsidiaries (for breach of any duty or otherwise), as a director or officer or otherwise, by reason of the fact that such person pursues or acquires such business opportunity,

29


directs such business opportunity to another person or fails to present such business opportunity, or information regarding such business opportunity, to us or our subsidiaries; provided, that the foregoing will not apply to any such person who is a director or officer, if such business opportunity is expressly offered to such director or officer in writing solely in his or her capacity as a director or officer. This may cause the strategic interests of the Sponsor Shareholders to differ from, and conflict with, our interests and our other shareholders in material respects.
Future sales of our common shares, or the perception in the public markets that such sales may occur, may depress our share price.
Sales of substantial amounts of our common shares in the public market or the perception that such sales could occur, could adversely affect the price of our common shares and could impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional shares and result in long-lived asset impairment.
In addition, to the extent that Warburg Pincus, Vestar, Bharti or other significant shareholders sell, or indicate an intent to sell, substantial amounts of our common shares in the public market, the trading price of our common shares could decline significantly. These factors could also make it more difficult for us to raise additional funds through future offerings of our common shares or other securities.
Issuing additional common shares or other equity securities or securities convertible into equity for financing or in connection with our incentive plans, acquisitions or otherwise may dilute the economic and voting rights of our existing shareholders or reduce the market price of our common shares or both. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities, if issued, and lenders with respect to other borrowings would receive a distribution of our available assets prior to the holders of our common shares. Debt securities convertible into equity could be subject to adjustments in the conversion ratio pursuant to which certain events may increase the number of equity securities issuable upon conversion. Our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, which may materially adversely affect the amount, timing or nature of future offerings. Thus, holders of our common shares bear the risk that our future offerings may reduce the market price of our common shares.
In the future, we may also issue securities in connection with investments or acquisitions. The amount of our common shares issued in connection with an investment or acquisition could constitute a material portion of our then-outstanding common shares. Any issuance of additional securities in connection with investments or acquisitions may result in dilution to you.
We are incorporated in Bermuda and a significant portion of our assets will be located outside the United States. As a result, it may not be possible for shareholders to enforce civil liability provisions of the federal or state securities laws of the United States against the Company.
We are incorporated under the laws of Bermuda and a significant portion of our assets are located outside the United States. It may not be possible to enforce court judgments obtained in the United States against us in Bermuda or in countries, other than the United States, where we will have assets, based on the civil liability provisions of the federal or state securities laws of the United States. In addition, there is some doubt as to whether the courts of Bermuda and other countries would recognize or enforce judgments of United States courts obtained against us or our officers or directors based on the civil liability provisions of the federal or state securities laws of the United States or would hear actions against us or those persons based on those laws. We have been advised by our legal advisors in Bermuda that the United States and Bermuda do not currently have a treaty providing for the reciprocal recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. Therefore, a final judgment for the payment of money rendered by any federal or state court in the United States based on civil liability, whether or not based solely on United States federal or state securities laws, would not automatically be enforceable in Bermuda. Similarly, those judgments may not be enforceable in countries, other than the United States, where we have assets.
Bermuda law differs from the laws in effect in the United States and may afford less protection to shareholders.
Our shareholders might have more difficulty protecting their interests than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a jurisdiction of the United States. As a Bermuda company, we are governed by the Bermuda Companies Act. The Bermuda Companies Act differs in some material respects from laws generally applicable to United States corporations and shareholders, including the provisions relating to interested directors, mergers, amalgamations and acquisitions, takeovers, shareholder lawsuits and indemnification of directors. See "Description of Our Common Shares" in the Form S-4.
Certain provisions of the Sponsor Shareholders Agreements, our memorandum of association and amended and restated bye-laws and Bermuda law could hinder, delay or prevent a change in control that you might consider favorable, which could also adversely affect the price of our common shares.
Certain provisions under the Sponsor Shareholders Agreements, our memorandum of association and amended and restated bye-laws and Bermuda law could discourage, delay or prevent a transaction involving a change in control, even if doing so would

30


benefit our shareholders. These provisions may include customary anti-takeover provisions and certain rights of our Sponsor Shareholders with respect to the designation of directors for nomination and election to our Board, including the ability to appoint members to each board committee.
Anti-takeover provisions could substantially impede the ability of our public shareholders to benefit from a change in control or change of our management and Board of Directors and, as a result, may materially adversely affect the market price of our common shares and your ability to realize any potential change of control premium. These provisions could also discourage proxy contests and make it more difficult for you and other shareholders to elect directors of your choosing and to cause us to take other corporate actions you desire.
We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights, which could materially affect our business.
Our ability to obtain, protect and enforce our intellectual property rights is subject to general litigation risks, as well as the uncertainty as to the registrability, validity and enforceability of our intellectual property rights in each applicable country.
We rely on our trademarks to distinguish our services from the services of competitors, and have registered or applied to register a number of these trademarks. However, our trademark applications may not be approved. Third parties may also oppose our trademark applications or otherwise challenge our ownership or use of trademarks. In the event that our trademarks are successfully challenged, we could be forced to rebrand our products, which could result in loss of brand recognition and could require us to devote resources to advertising and marketing of these new brands. Additionally, from time to time, third parties adopt or use names similar to ours, thereby impeding our ability to build brand identity and possibly leading to consumer confusion or to dilution of our trademarks. We may not have sufficient resources or desire to defend or enforce our intellectual property rights, and even if we seek to enforce them, there is no guarantee that we will be able to prevent such third-party uses. Furthermore, such enforcement efforts may be expensive, time consuming and could divert management’s attention from managing our business.
We may be subject to claims by others that we are infringing on their intellectual property rights, which could harm our business and negatively impact our results of operations.
Third parties may assert claims that we infringe their intellectual property rights and these claims, with or without merit, could be time-consuming to litigate, cause the Company to incur substantial costs and divert management resources and attention in defending the claim. In some jurisdictions, plaintiffs can also seek injunctive relief that may prevent the marketing and selling of our services that infringe on the plaintiff’s intellectual property rights. To resolve these claims, we may enter into licensing agreements with restrictive terms or significant fees, stop selling or redesign affected services, or pay damages to satisfy contractual obligations to others. If we do not resolve these claims in advance of a trial, there is no guarantee that we will be successful in court. These outcomes may have a material adverse impact on our operating results and financial condition.


31


ITEM 1B.  UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

        None

ITEM 2.  PROPERTIES

Office Locations.    As of December 31, 2017, our employees are located in 24 subsidiary offices in 15 different countries and our headquarters is in Bermuda.

ITEM 3.  LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

From time to time we are a party to litigation matters arising in connection with the normal course of our business. While we cannot predict the outcome of these matters, in the opinion of our management, any liability arising from these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business. Nevertheless, unexpected adverse future events, such as an unforeseen development in our existing proceedings, a significant increase in the number of new cases or changes in our current insurance arrangements could result in liabilities that have a material adverse impact on our business.

ITEM 4.  MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable.


32


PART II

ITEM 5. MARKET FOR REGISTRANT'S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED SHAREHOLDER MATTERS, AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

Our common shares have been listed on the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”) under the symbol "TRTN" since July 13, 2016. Prior to that time, there was no public market for our common shares.

       The following table summarizes the range of high and low sales prices, as reported on the NYSE, for our common shares for each quarter end period for the year ended December 31, 2017 and for the third and fourth quarters for the year ended December 31, 2016.
 
 
High
 
Low
2017
 
 
 
 
Fourth Quarter
 
$43.85
 
$33.19
Third Quarter
 
$38.19
 
$30.90
Second Quarter
 
$34.49
 
$24.85
First Quarter
 
$27.84
 
$15.92
2016:
 
 
 
 
Fourth Quarter
 
$21.34
 
$11.50
Third Quarter
 
$17.50
 
$12.12
      
On February 21, 2018, the closing price of our common shares was $28.56, as reported on the NYSE. On that date, there were 74 holders of record of our common shares and 29,520 beneficial holders, based on information obtained from our transfer agent.


33


PERFORMANCE GRAPH

The graph below compares our cumulative shareholder returns with the S&P 500 Stock Index and the Russell 2000 Stock Index for the period from July 13, 2016 (the first day our common shares were traded) through December 31, 2017. The graph assumes that the value of the investment in our common shares, the S&P 500 Stock Index and the Russell 2000 Stock Index was $100 on July 13, 2016 and that all dividends were reinvested.

Comparison of Cumulative Total Return
July 13, 2016 through December 31, 2017
triton-2016123_item5charta02.jpg

 
Base Period as of
 
INDEXED RETURNS FOR THE YEARS ENDED
Company / Index
July 13, 2016
 
December 31, 2016
 
December 31, 2017
Triton International Limited
100.00
 
105.49
 
264.66
S&P 500 Index
100.00
 
105.06
 
127.99
Russell 2000 Index
100.00
 
113.77
 
130.43



34


Dividends

We paid the following quarterly dividends during the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 on our issued and outstanding common shares:

Record Date
Payment Date
 
Aggregate
Payment
 
Per Share
Payment
December 1, 2017
December 22, 2017
 
$36.0 Million
 
$0.45
September 1, 2017
September 22, 2017
 
$33.2 Million
 
$0.45
June 1, 2017
June 22, 2017
 
$33.2 Million
 
$0.45
March 20, 2017
March 30, 2017
 
$33.2 Million
 
$0.45
December 2, 2016
December 22, 2016
 
$33.2 Million
 
$0.45
September 8, 2016
September 22, 2016
 
$33.3 Million
 
$0.45
July 8, 2016a
July 11, 2016
 
$18.3 Million
 
$0.45
_______________________________________________________________________________
a. This dividend was prior to the Merger and represents TCIL dividend payments only.
Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities and Use of Proceeds

None




35


ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA
The following table summarizes certain selected historical financial, operating and other data of Triton. The selected historical consolidated statements of operations data, balance sheet data and other financial data for each of the five years ended December 31, 2017 were derived from the Company's audited Consolidated Financial Statements and related notes. The data below should be read in conjunction with, and is qualified by reference to, our Management's Discussion and Analysis and our Consolidated Financial Statements and notes thereto contained elsewhere in this report. The historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected in any future period. The results of operations for Triton included herein for the periods prior to the date of the Merger on July 12, 2016 are for TCIL operations alone as TCIL was treated as the acquirer in the Merger for accounting purposes.

36


 
Year Ended December 31,
(In thousands, except per share data)
 
2017
 
2016
 
2015
 
2014
 
2013
Statements of Operations Data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Leasing revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Operating leases
$
1,141,165

 
$
813,357

 
$
699,810

 
$
699,188

 
$
693,078

Finance leases
22,352

 
15,337

 
8,029

 
8,027

 
10,282

Total leasing revenues
1,163,517

 
828,694

 
707,839


707,215


703,360

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Equipment trading revenues(1)
37,419

 
16,418

 

 

 

Equipment trading expenses(1)
(33,235
)
 
(15,800
)
 

 

 

Trading margin
4,184

 
618

 





 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net gain (loss) on sale of leasing equipment
35,812

 
(20,347
)
 
2,013

 
31,616

 
42,562

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Operating expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Depreciation and amortization(2)
500,720

 
392,592

 
300,470

 
258,489

 
229,298

Direct operating expenses
62,891

 
84,256

 
54,440

 
58,014

 
72,846

Administrative expenses
87,609

 
65,618

 
53,435

 
55,659

 
56,227

Transaction and other costs(3)
9,272

 
66,916

 
22,185

 
30,477

 
22,684

Provision (reversal) for doubtful accounts
3,347

 
23,304

 
(2,156
)
 
1,324

 
4,966

Insurance recovery income
(6,764
)
 

 

 

 

Total operating expenses
657,075

 
632,686

 
428,374


403,963


386,021

Operating income
546,438

 
176,279

 
281,478


334,868


359,901

Other expenses (income):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Interest and debt expense
282,347

 
184,014

 
140,644

 
137,370

 
133,222

Realized loss on derivate instruments, net
900

 
3,438

 
5,496

 
9,385

 
20,170

Unrealized (gain) loss on derivative instruments, net(4)
(1,397
)
 
(4,405
)
 
2,240

 
3,798

 
(29,714
)
Write-off of debt costs
6,973

 
141

 
1,170

 
7,468

 
3,568

Other (income) expense, net
(2,637
)
 
(1,076
)
 
211

 
(689
)
 
529

Total other expenses
286,186

 
182,112

 
149,761


157,332


127,775

Income (loss) before income taxes
260,252

 
(5,833
)
 
131,717

 
177,536


232,126

Income tax (benefit) expense
(93,274
)
 
(48
)
 
4,048

 
6,232

 
6,752

Net income (loss)
353,526

 
(5,785
)
 
127,669

 
171,304


225,374

Less: income attributable to non-controlling interest
8,928

 
7,732

 
16,580

 
21,837

 
31,274

Net income (loss) attributable to shareholders
$
344,598


$
(13,517
)

$
111,089


$
149,467


$
194,100

Earnings Per Share Data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Net income (loss) per common share—Basic
$
4.55


$
(0.24
)
 
$
2.75


$
3.73


$
4.85

Net income (loss) per common share—Diluted
$
4.52


$
(0.24
)

$
2.71


$
3.52


$
4.58

Weighted average common shares and non-voting common shares outstanding:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Basic
75,679

 
56,032

 
40,429

 
40,021

 
40,009

Diluted
76,188

 
56,032

 
40,932

 
42,458

 
42,423

Cash dividends paid per common share
$
1.80

 
$
1.35

 
$

 
$
5.38

 
$

____________________
(1) Triton acquired the Equipment trading segment as part of the Merger on July 12, 2016 and had no such reporting segment prior to that date.
(2) Depreciation expense was increased by $1.8 million per quarter beginning October 1, 2015 as the result of a decrease in residual value estimates and an increase in the useful life estimates for certain dry containers included in Triton’s depreciation policy.
(3) Includes retention and stock compensation expense pursuant to the Merger and the plans established as part of TCIL's 2011 re-capitalization.

37


(4) Unrealized gains and losses on derivative instruments, net are primarily due to changes in interest rates, and reflect changes in the fair value of interest rate swaps not designated as cash flow hedges.
 
As of December 31,
(In thousands)
 
2017
 
2016
 
2015
 
2014
 
2013
Balance Sheet Data (end of period):
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Cash and cash equivalents (including restricted cash)
$
226,171

 
$
163,492

 
$
79,264

 
$
97,059

 
$
112,813

Accounts receivable, net
199,876

 
173,585

 
110,970

 
112,596

 
111,884

Revenue earning assets, net
8,703,570

 
7,817,192

 
4,428,699

 
4,613,372

 
4,192,625

Total assets
9,577,625

 
8,713,571

 
4,658,997

 
4,863,259

 
4,461,598

Debt, net of unamortized debt costs
6,911,725

 
6,353,449

 
3,166,903

 
3,364,510

 
2,942,434

Shareholders' equity
2,076,284

 
1,663,233

 
1,217,329

 
1,106,160

 
1,153,599

Non-controlling interests
133,542

 
143,504

 
160,504

 
190,851

 
207,376

Total equity (including non-controlling interests)
2,209,826

 
1,806,737

 
1,377,833

 
1,297,011

 
1,360,975

Other Financial Data:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Capital expenditures
1,562,863

 
629,332

 
398,799

 
809,446

 
633,317

Proceeds from sale of equipment leasing fleet, net of selling costs
190,744

 
145,572

 
171,719

 
195,282

 
162,120



38


ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS
The statements in this discussion regarding industry outlook, our expectations regarding our future performance, liquidity and capital resources and other non-historical statements are subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to, the risks and uncertainties described under "Risk Factors" and "Cautionary Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements" as discussed elsewhere in this Form 10-K. Our actual results may differ materially from those contained in or implied by any forward-looking statements.
Unless the context requires otherwise, references to “Triton,” the “Company,” “we,” “us” or “our” in this Annual Report on Form 10-K refer to Triton International Limited.
Our Company
Triton International Limited was formed on July 12, 2016, by an all stock merger (the “Merger”) of Triton Container International Limited (“TCIL”) and TAL International Group, Inc. (“TAL”). TCIL was treated as the acquirer in the Merger for accounting purposes, and therefore, the results of our operations, included herein, for the periods prior to the Merger on July 12, 2016 are for TCIL operations alone. However, certain operating statistics included in this section reflect the combined statistics for TCIL and TAL prior to the Merger in order to show overall operating trends more clearly. Management believes combined fleet information is relevant when evaluating key operating metrics, such as container fleet growth and utilization, and analyzing for historical trends.

We are the world's largest lessor of intermodal containers. Intermodal containers are large, standardized steel boxes used to transport freight by ship, rail or truck. Because of the handling efficiencies they provide, intermodal containers are the primary means by which many goods and materials are shipped internationally. We also lease chassis which are used for the transportation of containers.

We operate our business in one industry, intermodal transportation equipment, and have two business segments, which also represent our reporting segments:

Equipment leasing - we own, lease and ultimately dispose of containers and chassis from our lease fleet.

Equipment trading - we purchase containers from shipping line customers, and other sellers of containers, and resell these containers to container retailers and users of containers for storage or one-way shipment.
Operations
Our consolidated operations include the acquisition, leasing, re-leasing and subsequent sale of multiple types of intermodal containers and chassis. As of December 31, 2017, our total fleet consisted of 3,429,796 containers and chassis, representing 5,648,987 twenty-foot equivalent units ("TEU") or 7,058,068 cost equivalent units ("CEU"). We have an extensive global presence, offering leasing services through 24 offices in 15 countries and approximately 456 third-party container depot facilities in approximately 47 countries as of December 31, 2017. Our primary customers include the world's largest container shipping lines. For the year ended December 31, 2017, our twenty largest customers accounted for 83% of our lease billings, our five largest customers accounted for 55% of our lease billings, and our two largest customers, CMA CGM and Mediterranean Shipping Company, accounted for 19% and 14% of our lease billings, respectively.
We lease five types of equipment: (1) dry containers, which are used for general cargo such as manufactured component parts, consumer staples, electronics and apparel, (2) refrigerated containers, which are used for perishable items such as fresh and frozen foods, (3) special containers, which are used for heavy and over-sized cargo such as marble slabs, building products and machinery, (4) tank containers, which are used to transport bulk liquid products such as chemicals, and (5) chassis, which are used for the transportation of containers. Our in-house equipment sales group manages the sale process for our used containers and chassis from our equipment leasing fleet and buys and sells used and new containers and chassis acquired from third parties.


39


The following tables summarize our equipment fleet as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 and the combined fleets of TCIL and TAL as of December 31, 2015, indicated in units, TEU and CEU.
 
Equipment Fleet in Units
 
Equipment Fleet in TEU
 
December 31, 2017
 
December 31, 2016
 
December 31, 2015
 
December 31, 2017
 
December 31, 2016
 
December 31, 2015
Dry
3,077,144

 
2,737,982

 
2,626,339

 
5,000,043

 
4,424,905

 
4,205,867

Refrigerated
218,429

 
217,243

 
198,142

 
419,673

 
416,992

 
378,834

Special
89,066

 
92,957

 
93,325

 
159,172

 
164,977

 
164,491

Tank
12,124

 
11,961

 
11,243

 
12,124

 
11,961

 
11,243

Chassis
22,523

 
22,128

 
22,107

 
41,068

 
40,233

 
39,992

Equipment leasing fleet
3,419,286

 
3,082,271

 
2,951,156

 
5,632,080

 
5,059,068

 
4,800,427

Equipment trading fleet
10,510

 
15,927

 
21,135

 
16,907

 
26,276

 
35,989

Total
3,429,796

 
3,098,198

 
2,972,291

 
5,648,987

 
5,085,344

 
4,836,416

 
Equipment Fleet in CEU(1)
 
December 31, 2017
 
December 31, 2016
 
December 31, 2015
Operating leases
6,678,282

 
6,126,320

 
5,855,833

Finance leases
328,024

 
368,468

 
252,229

Equipment trading fleet
51,762

 
72,646

 
107,080

Total
7,058,068

 
6,567,434

 
6,215,142

(1) In the equipment fleet tables above, we have included total fleet count information based on CEU. CEU is a ratio used to convert the actual number of containers in our fleet to a figure based on the relative purchase prices of our various equipment types to that of a 20-foot dry container. For example, the CEU ratio for a 40-foot high cube dry container is 1.68, and a 40-foot high cube refrigerated container is 10.0. The CEU ratios used in this calculation are from our debt agreements and may differ slightly from CEU ratios used by others in the industry.
The following table summarizes the percentage of our equipment fleet in terms of units and CEU as of December 31, 2017:
Equipment Type
Percentage of
total fleet
in units
 
Percent of total fleet in CEU
Dry
89.7
%
 
61.8
%
Refrigerated
6.4

 
30.4

Special
2.6

 
3.0

Tank
0.3

 
2.8

Chassis
0.7

 
1.3

Equipment leasing fleet
99.7

 
99.3

Equipment trading fleet
0.3

 
0.7

Total
100.0
%
 
100.0
%
We generally lease our equipment on a per diem basis to our customers under three types of leases: long-term leases, finance leases and service leases. Long-term leases, typically with initial contractual terms ranging from three to eight years, provide us with stable cash flow and low transaction costs by requiring customers to maintain specific units on-hire for the duration of the lease. Finance leases, which are typically structured as full payout leases, provide for a predictable recurring revenue stream with the lowest cost to the customer as customers are generally required to retain the equipment for the duration of its useful life. Service leases command a premium per diem rate in exchange for providing customers with a greater level of operational flexibility by allowing the pick-up and drop-off of units during the lease term. We also have expired long-term leases whose fixed terms have ended but for which the related units remain on-hire and for which we continue to receive rental payments pursuant to the terms of the initial contract. Some leases have contractual terms that have features reflective of both long-term and service leases and we classify such leases as either long-term or service leases, depending upon which features we believe are predominant.

40


The following table summarizes our lease portfolio by lease type, based on CEU on-hire as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 and the combined lease portfolios of TCIL and TAL as of December 31, 2015:
Lease Portfolio
December 31,
2017

December 31,
2016

December 31,
2015
Long-term leases
72.2
%
 
69.7
%
 
69.2
%
Finance leases
4.9

 
6.3

 
4.6

Service leases
14.1

 
18.5

 
20.6

Expired long-term leases (units remaining on-hire)
8.8

 
5.5

 
5.6

Total
100.0
%
 
100.0
%
 
100.0
%
As of December 31, 2017, 2016, and 2015, our long-term and finance leases combined had an average remaining contractual term of approximately 43 months, 39 months, and 39 months, respectively, assuming no leases are renewed.
Operating Performance
The following discussion of market conditions and our operating performance refers to a variety of our business metrics and trends including fleet size, utilization, average per diem rates and used container sale prices and volumes. In this section, for the periods prior to the Merger, the relevant performance measures for TCIL and TAL have been combined on a pro forma basis for comparative purposes. We believe these combined business metrics for the periods prior to the Merger are relevant when evaluating operating performance and analyzing historical trends. These combined operating metrics do not necessarily reflect what the result would have been if the transaction occurred prior to July 12, 2016.
Market conditions rebounded favorably during 2017, especially for our dry container product line after being negative for much of 2015 and 2016. The supply / demand balance for containers was strong in 2017, driven by stronger than expected global containerized trade growth, limited new container production volumes during 2016, reduced new container purchases by a number of our competitors and shipping line customers, and new container production disruptions in the first half 2017. We were able to capitalize on these market conditions to produce solid improvements in our operating metrics and financial performance.
Fleet size.    During 2017, we invested approximately $1.6 billion in new containers purchasing approximately 750,000 CEUs. The net book value of our revenue earning assets increased by 11.3% to $8.7 billion in 2017, and our fleet size in CEU’s increased by 7.5% to reach 7,058,068 CEU at December 31, 2017. The higher growth in our revenue earnings assets compared to CEU’s is due to an increase in the average book value per CEU since our new container purchases in 2017 were primarily focused on dry containers, and the current relative price of dry containers is higher than the CEU weighting we use in our CEU calculations.
Our high level of investment in 2017 was driven by stronger than expected containerized trade growth, an increased share of new containers purchased by leasing companies relative to the portion purchased directly by our shipping line customers, and an increase in our share of leasing transactions. Market forecasters estimate that global containerized trade grew 5-6% in 2017, up significantly from an estimated 3% growth in 2016. In addition, our shipping line customers have been facing difficult market conditions for several years, including excess vessel capacity and weak freight rates, and many have been reluctant to place sizable orders for new containers. Additionally, several of our container leasing competitors experienced financial challenges and reduced their levels of new container investments during 2017.
Utilization.    Our average utilization was 96.9% during 2017, as compared to 93.3% in 2016, and our ending utilization was 98.6% as of December 31, 2017, as compared to 94.8% as of December 31, 2016.
In 2017, our utilization benefited from a tight supply / demand balance, particularly for dry containers. Higher than expected trade growth led to strong demand for containers, while limited production of new containers by many shipping lines and several of our leasing company competitors limited new container supply. In addition, container manufacturing capacity was limited in the first half of the year since the major container manufacturers in China were forced to adjust their manufacturing processes in response to more stringent environment regulations.

41


The favorable supply / demand balance in 2017 followed a period of weak leasing demand from the middle of 2015 through the middle of 2016, when trade growth was weaker than expected and we faced an excess supply of containers due to high levels of new container production at the end of 2014 and the first half of 2015. Shipping lines responded to the lower trade growth in 2015 and the first half of 2016, and the resulting excess inventory of containers, by increasing the number of containers they returned off-lease and reducing the number of containers picked up on lease. Shipping lines and leasing companies also significantly reduced the volume of new container purchases during this period, which helped the supply / demand balance as containerized trade growth started to recover in the second half of 2016.

The following tables summarize our equipment fleet utilization(1) for the periods indicated below. Utilization for periods prior to the merger reflect the utilization of the combined TCIL and TAL equipment fleets.
 
 
 
 
Quarter Ended
Average Utilization
 
Year Ended December 31,
 
December 31,
 
September 30,
 
June 30,
 
March 31,
2017
 
96.9%
 
98.3%
 
97.6%
 
96.5%
 
95.3%
2016
 
93.3%
 
93.6%
 
92.4%
 
93.3%
 
94.0%
2015
 
96.5%
 
94.8%
 
96.2%
 
97.2%
 
97.7%
 
 
Quarter Ended
Ending Utilization
 
December 31,
 
September 30,
 
June 30,
 
March 31,
2017
 
98.6%
 
98.0%
 
97.1%
 
95.8%
2016
 
94.8%
 
92.6%
 
93.7%
 
93.5%
2015
 
94.4%
 
95.5%
 
96.9%
 
97.5%
_______________________________________________________________________________
(1)
Utilization is computed by dividing our total units on lease (in CEU) by the total units in our fleet (in CEU) excluding new units not yet leased and off-hire units designated for sale. For the periods prior to the July 12, 2016 Merger, the utilization reflects the combined utilization of the TCIL and TAL equipment fleets.
Average lease rates.    Average lease rates for our dry container product line decreased by 3.9% in 2017 compared to 2016. After being historically low for the majority 2015 and 2016, due to weak container demand and low steel and new container prices, market lease rates increased beginning in the fourth quarter of 2016 and continued to increase in 2017, driven by a rebound in steel and new container prices and an increase in leasing demand. The improvement in market lease rates has led to an increase in the average lease rates for our dry container lease portfolio since the middle of 2017. Market lease rates for new dry containers are currently slightly above the average lease rates of our dry container lease portfolio, and we expect our average dry container lease rates to increase further if new container prices remain in their current range and market conditions remain favorable.
We have a large number of dry container leases which are expired or will expire in 2018. We expect the impact of most of these dry container lease expirations will be relatively limited if the current market lease rate level is sustained. However, we would likely face a substantial negative impact on our average dry container lease rates and financial performance if dry container market lease rates decline toward the levels we faced in 2015 and 2016.
Average lease rates for our refrigerated container product line decreased by 7.1% in 2017 compared to 2016. The cost of refrigerated containers has trended down over the last few years, which has led to lower market lease rates. Market lease rates had also been pressured for several years by new leasing company entrants. Market lease rates for refrigerated containers increased in 2017 due to less aggressive investment by leasing companies, though market lease rates remain below the average lease rates of our refrigerated container lease portfolio, and we expect our average lease rates for refrigerated containers to continue to trend down.
The average lease rates for our special container product line decreased by 2.9% in 2017 compared to 2016. Current market lease rates for special containers are comparable to the average lease rates in our lease portfolio.

42


Equipment disposals.    Used dry container disposal prices increased steadily during 2017 reflecting increases in new container prices and strong leasing demand which led to lower drop-off volumes and a reduced inventories of containers held for sale. The demand for disposal containers for one-way use was also positively impacted by improved global trade. Our average used dry container sale prices increased by almost 50% in 2017 compared to 2016. We expect our average dry container selling prices to increase further in the first quarter of 2018 due to high demand and lower supply, though decreased disposal volumes due to our low inventory of sale containers may negatively impact our disposal gains
Credit Risk. Our credit risk is currently elevated due to the ongoing financial pressure faced by our shipping line customers. The container shipping industry has faced several years of excess vessel capacity, weak freight rates and poor financial results due to the combination of low trade growth and aggressive ordering of mega container vessels. Most of our customers generated financial losses in 2016 and many are burdened with high levels of debt. We anticipate the high volume of new vessels entering service over the next several years will complicate our customers’ efforts to increase freight rates, and we expect our customers’ financial performance will remain under pressure for some time.
We experienced a major lessee default in 2016 when Hanjin Shipping Co. ("Hanjin"), filed for court protection on August 31, 2016 and immediately began a liquidation process. At that time, we had approximately 87,000 container units on lease to Hanjin with a net book value of $243.3 million. We recorded a loss of $29.7 million during the third quarter ended September 30, 2016, comprised of bad debt expense and a charge for costs not expected to be recovered due to deductibles in credit insurance policies. In the processes of recovering these containers we incurred substantial costs including costs to remove existing liens on the containers, repair and handling costs and positioning costs to move the containers recovered from locations with weak leasing demand to higher demand locations. As of December 31, 2017, we recovered approximately 94% of the containers previously leased to Hanjin.

The impact of the Hanjin liquidation was significantly lessened by credit insurance policies in place during 2016 which covered the majority of the recovery costs and the value of the containers that were unrecoverable and a portion of the lost lease revenue. The insurance policies did not cover our pre-default receivables. We collected payments from our insurance providers of $67.0 million in satisfaction of our claims and recorded a gain of $6.8 million to insurance recovery income within operating expenses. The net gain represents insurance proceeds received in excess of recovery costs incurred and the net book value of those units written off as unrecoverable.

We expect it will become more difficult for us to mitigate our exposure to credit risks in the future through the purchase of credit insurance as a result of the Hanjin liquidation. We let our credit insurance policies lapse at expiration since underwriters offered significantly reduced coverage and required a meaningful increase in insurance premiums. As of December 31, 2017, we have obtained a more limited credit insurance policy covering accounts receivables for some of our customers. This policy offers significantly reduced protections against a major customer default compared to the credit insurance we had in place prior to the Hanjin bankruptcy, and the policy has exclusions and payment and other limitations, and therefore will not protect us from losses arising from customer defaults in a similar manner. We continue to monitor the availability and pricing of credit insurance and related products.

Dividends
We paid the following quarterly dividends during the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 on our issued and outstanding common shares adjusted for the effects of the Merger:
Record Date
Payment Date
 
Aggregate
Payment
 
Per Share
Payment
December 1, 2017
December 22, 2017
 
$36.0 Million
 
$0.45
September 1, 2017
September 22, 2017
 
$33.2 Million
 
$0.45
June 1, 2017
June 22, 2017
 
$33.2 Million
 
$0.45
March 20, 2017
March 30, 2017
 
$33.2 Million
 
$0.45
December 2, 2016
December 22, 2016
 
$33.2 Million
 
$0.45
September 8, 2016
September 22, 2016
 
$33.3 Million
 
$0.45
July 8, 2016a
July 11, 2016
 
$18.3 Million
 
$0.45
_______________________________________________________________________________
a. This dividend was prior to the Merger and represents TCIL dividend payments only.

43


Results of Operations
The following table summarizes our results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015. The results for December 31, 2017 and 2016 are impacted by the Merger on a comparative basis. TCIL has been treated as the acquirer in the Merger for accounting purposes, and therefore, the results of our operations, included herein, for the periods prior to the Merger on July 12, 2016 are for TCIL operations alone (in thousands).
 
Year Ended December 31, 2017
 
Year Ended December 31, 2016
 
Year Ended December 31, 2015
Leasing revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
Operating leases
$
1,141,165

 
$
813,357

 
$
699,810

Finance leases
22,352

 
15,337

 
8,029

Total leasing revenues
1,163,517

 
828,694

 
707,839

 
 
 
 
 
 
Equipment trading revenues
37,419

 
16,418

 

Equipment trading expenses
(33,235
)
 
(15,800
)
 

Trading margin
4,184

 
618

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Net gain (loss) on sale of leasing equipment
35,812

 
(20,347
)
 
2,013

 
 
 
 
 
 
Operating expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
Depreciation and amortization
500,720

 
392,592

 
300,470

Direct operating expenses
62,891

 
84,256

 
54,440

Administrative expenses
87,609

 
65,618

 
53,435

Transaction and other costs
9,272

 
66,916

 
22,185

Provision (reversal) for doubtful accounts
3,347

 
23,304

 
(2,156
)
Insurance recovery income
(6,764
)
 

 

Total operating expenses
657,075

 
632,686

 
428,374

Operating income
546,438

 
176,279

 
281,478

Other expenses:
 
 
 
 
 
Interest and debt expense
282,347

 
184,014

 
140,644

Realized loss on derivative instruments, net
900

 
3,438

 
5,496

Unrealized (gain) loss on derivative instruments, net
(1,397
)
 
(4,405
)
 
2,240

Write-off of debt costs
6,973

 
141

 
1,170

Other (income) expense, net
(2,637
)
 
(1,076
)
 
211

Total other expenses
286,186

 
182,112

 
149,761

Income (loss) before income taxes
260,252

 
(5,833
)
 
131,717

Income tax (benefit) expense
(93,274
)
 
(48
)
 
4,048

Net income (loss)
$
353,526

 
$
(5,785
)
 
$
127,669

Less: income attributable to non-controlling interest
8,928

 
7,732

 
16,580

Net income (loss) attributable to shareholders
$
344,598

 
$
(13,517
)
 
$
111,089






44


Comparison of the Year Ended December 31, 2017 to the Year Ended December 31, 2016
The following table summarizes our comparative results for the periods indicated (in thousands):
 
Year Ended December 31, 2017
 
Year Ended December 31, 2016
 
Variance
Leasing revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
Operating leases
$
1,141,165

 
$
813,357

 
$
327,808

Finance leases
22,352

 
15,337

 
7,015

Total leasing revenues
1,163,517

 
828,694

 
334,823

 
 
 
 
 


Equipment trading revenues
37,419

 
16,418

 
21,001

Equipment trading expenses
(33,235
)
 
(15,800
)
 
(17,435
)
Trading margin
4,184

 
618

 
3,566

 
 
 
 
 


Net gain (loss) on sale of leasing equipment
35,812

 
(20,347
)
 
56,159

 
 
 
 
 


Operating expenses:
 
 
 
 


Depreciation and amortization
500,720

 
392,592

 
108,128

Direct operating expenses
62,891

 
84,256

 
(21,365
)
Administrative expenses
87,609

 
65,618

 
21,991

Transaction and other costs
9,272

 
66,916

 
(57,644
)
Provision for doubtful accounts
3,347

 
23,304

 
(19,957
)
Insurance recovery income
(6,764
)
 

 
(6,764
)
Total operating expenses
657,075

 
632,686

 
24,389

Operating income
546,438

 
176,279

 
370,159

Other expenses:
 
 
 
 

Interest and debt expense
282,347

 
184,014

 
98,333

Realized loss on derivative instruments, net
900

 
3,438

 
(2,538
)
Unrealized (gain) on derivative instruments, net
(1,397
)
 
(4,405
)
 
3,008

Write-off of debt costs
6,973

 
141

 
6,832

Other (income), net
(2,637
)
 
(1,076
)
 
(1,561
)
Total other expenses
286,186

 
182,112

 
104,074

Income (loss) before income taxes
260,252

 
(5,833
)
 
266,085

Income tax (benefit)
(93,274
)
 
(48
)
 
(93,226
)
Net income (loss)
$
353,526

 
$
(5,785
)
 
$
359,311

Less: income attributable to non-controlling interest
8,928

 
7,732

 
1,196

Net income (loss) attributable to shareholders
$
344,598

 
$
(13,517
)
 
$
358,115


Our operating performance and revenues were impacted by the Merger on July 12, 2016 and the subsequent inclusion of TAL's results of operations and equipment fleet in our financial results and operating metrics. TCIL has been treated as the acquirer in the Merger for accounting purposes, and therefore, the results of our operations, included herein, for the periods prior to the date of the Merger are for TCIL operations alone.

45


Leasing revenues.    Per diem revenue represents revenue earned under operating lease contracts. Fee and ancillary lease revenue represents fees billed for the pick-up and drop-off of containers in certain geographic locations and billings of certain reimbursable operating costs such as repair and handling expenses. Finance lease revenue represents interest income earned under finance lease contracts.
 
Year Ended December 31, 2017
 
Year Ended December 31, 2016
 
Variance
 
(in thousands)
Leasing revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
Operating lease revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
Per diem revenues
$
1,100,507

 
$
762,011

 
$
338,496

Fee and ancillary lease revenues
40,658

 
51,346

 
(10,688
)
Total operating lease revenues
1,141,165

 
813,357

 
327,808

Finance lease revenues
22,352

 
15,337

 
7,015

Total leasing revenues
$
1,163,517

 
$
828,694

 
$
334,823

Total leasing revenues were $1,163.5 million, net of lease intangible amortization of $88.6 million, in 2017 compared to $828.7 million, net of lease intangible amortization of $55.5 million, in 2016, an increase of $334.8 million.
Per diem revenues were $1,100.5 million in 2017 compared to $762.0 million in 2016, an increase of $338.5 million. The primary reasons for this increase are as follows:
$223.6 million increase due to the inclusion of TAL's per diem revenues for the full year in 2017 while TAL’s per diem revenues were included only after July 12th in 2016;

$128.3 million increase due to an increase of 1,131,167 CEU in the average number of containers on-hire under operating leases; partially offset by a

$14.9 million decrease due to a decrease in average CEU per diem rates.
Fee and ancillary lease revenues were $40.7 million in 2017 compared to $51.3 million in 2016, a decrease of $10.7 million. The primary reasons for this decrease are as follows:
$10.2 million increase due to the inclusion of TAL's fees and ancillary lease revenues for the full year in 2017 while TAL’s fee and ancillary lease revenues were included only after July 12th in 2016; and a

$20.9 million decrease in redelivery fees due to a decrease in the volume of customer redeliveries due to strong lease demand.
Finance lease revenues were $22.4 million in 2017 compared to $15.3 million in 2016, an increase of $7.0 million. The primary reasons for this increase are as follows:
$3.9 million increase due to the inclusion of TAL's finance lease revenues for the full year in 2017 while TAL’s finance lease revenues were included only after July 12th in 2016;

$4.7 million increase due to the inclusion of a finance lease contract that commenced in September 2016 for the twelve months in 2017 as compared to four months in 2016; and
$1.6 million decrease due the amortization of the existing portfolio.
Trading margin.    Prior to the Merger, we did not have a trading business. Trading margin was $4.2 million in 2017 compared to $0.6 million in 2016. The increase of $3.6 million is the result of the inclusion of the trading business for a full year in 2017, while the trading business was only included after July 12th in 2016, as well as a result of an increase in the disposal volume and margins.

46


Net gain (loss) on sale of leasing equipment.    Gain on sale of equipment was $35.8 million in 2017 compared to a loss on sale of equipment of $20.3 million in 2016, an increase of $56.1 million. The primary reasons for this increase are as follows:
$8.9 million increase due to the inclusion of TAL's gains on sale of leasing equipment for the full year in 2017 while TAL's gains on sale of leasing equipment were included only after July 12th in 2016; and a

$47.2 million increase due to an approximately 50% increase in our average used container selling prices.
Depreciation and amortization.    Depreciation and amortization was $500.7 million in 2017 compared to $392.6 million in 2016, an increase of $108.1 million. The primary reasons for this increase are as follows:
$95.8 million increase due to the inclusion of TAL's depreciation and amortization for the full year in 2017 while TAL's depreciation and amortization was included only after July 12th in 2016;

$33.2 million increase due to a net increase in the size of our depreciable fleet; partially offset by a

$13.1 million decrease due to an impairment charge recorded as depreciation expense in 2016. There was no impairment charge recorded as depreciation expense in 2017; and

$7.0 million decrease due to equipment becoming fully depreciated.
Direct operating expenses.    Direct operating expenses primarily consist of our costs to repair equipment returned off lease, store the equipment when it is not on lease and reposition equipment that has been returned to locations with weak leasing demand. Direct operating expenses were $62.9 million in 2017 compared to $84.3 million in 2016, a decrease of $21.4 million. The primary reasons for this decrease are as follows:
$20.2 million increase due to the inclusion of TAL's direct operating expenses for the full year in 2017 while TAL’s direct operating expenses were included only after July 12th in 2016;

$22.2 million decrease due to a decrease in storage expenses resulting from decreases in the number of idle units; and

$16.5 million decrease due to a decrease in equipment repair and handling expenses resulting from decreases in the number of containers redelivered.
Administrative expenses.    Administrative expenses were $87.6 million in 2017 compared to $65.6 million in 2016, an increase of $22.0 million. The primary reasons for this increase are as follows:
$23.5 million increase due to the inclusion of TAL administrative expenses for the full year in 2017 while TAL’s administrative expenses were included only after July 12th in 2016;

$3.0 million increase due to an increase in bonus expense as a result of improved financial performance;

$3.5 million increase due to a benefit in 2016 due to a reclassification of accrued bonus expense from administrative expense to transaction and other costs that did not re-occur in 2017;

$3.5 million increase due to an increase in our professional fees and directors' share-based compensation expense; partially offset by a

$14.5 million decrease due to a decrease in employee compensation and benefit expense as a result of synergies gained from the Merger in addition to the $7.7 million in savings recognized in 2016. The $23.5 million increase in administrative expenses due to the inclusion of TAL administrative expenses in 2017, includes a benefit of $3.3 million related to employee compensation and benefit savings as a result of synergies gained from the Merger.
Transaction and other costs. Transaction and other costs include severance and employee compensation costs, legal costs and other professional fees. Transaction and other costs related to the Merger were $8.8 million in 2017 compared to $60.4 million in 2016. We accrued significant legal and other professional fees and employee severance expenses related to the Merger in 2016.
Transaction and other costs also include retention and stock compensation costs pursuant to the plans established in 2011. Transaction and other costs unrelated to the Merger were $0.5 million in 2017 and $6.5 million in 2016. The decrease in transaction and other costs unrelated to the Merger was mainly due to a reduction in stock compensation accruals on incentive stock initially granted in 2011.

47


Provision for doubtful accounts.    Provision for doubtful accounts was $3.3 million in 2017 compared to $23.3 million in 2016. The 2016 provision for doubtful accounts is largely related to the lease default by Hanjin.
Insurance recovery income. Insurance recovery income was $6.8 million in 2017 due to the recognition of a gain related to the satisfaction of our credit insurance claims with respect to the lease default by Hanjin. There was no insurance recovery income in 2016.
Interest and debt expense.    Interest and debt expense was $282.3 million in 2017 compared to $184.0 million in 2016, an increase of $98.3 million. The primary reasons for this increase are as follows:
$65.2 million increase due to the inclusion of TAL's interest and debt expense for the full year in 2017 while TAL’s interest and debt expense was included only after July 12th in 2016;

$18.3 million increase due to a higher average debt balance during 2017 compared to 2016; and

$14.8 million increase due to an increase in the average effective interest rate to 4.33% in 2017 compared to 4.02% in 2016.
Realized loss on derivative instruments, net.    Realized loss on derivative instruments, net was $0.9 million in 2017, compared to $3.4 million in 2016, a decrease of $2.5 million. The decrease in the realized loss on derivative instruments, net is mainly due to the reduction of the underlying swap notional amounts due to amortization and the termination of three interest rate swaps and an increase in the average one-month LIBOR rate in 2017 compared to 2016, which increased the receive leg of the swap contracts while the fixed leg remained flat. TAL's inclusion for the full year-to-date period in 2017 compared to partial inclusion in 2016 increased the realized loss on derivative instruments, net by $0.1 million in the 2017.
Unrealized (gain) on derivative instruments. Unrealized gain on derivative instruments, net was $1.4 million in 2017, compared to $4.4 million in 2016, a decrease of $3.0 million. Long term interest rates increased to a lesser extent between December 31, 2016 to December 31, 2017 compared to the increase between December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016.
Write-off of debt costs. Write-off of debt costs was $7.0 million in 2017 compared to $0.1 million in 2016. The increase of $6.9 million was mainly due to the amendment or termination of certain existing debt facilities and the resulting write-off of the unamortized debt costs related to those facilities.

Income taxes. Income tax benefit was $93.3 million in 2017 compared to an income tax benefit of $0.05 million in 2016, an increase in income tax benefit of $93.2 million. As a result of the US Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the related reduction of the US Corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, we recorded a one-time tax benefit of $139.4 million in the fourth quarter in 2017 to reflect the deferred tax liability at the lower corporate tax rate. This benefit was partially offset by a tax provision for income taxes on operating income at the effective tax rate of 17.7%.

Income attributable to non-controlling interests. Income attributable to non-controlling interests was $8.9 million in 2017 compared to $7.7 million in 2016, an increase of $1.2 million. The increase was a result of higher income from gains on the disposition of container rental equipment attributable to the non-controlling interests, partially offset by a reduction in the size of the portfolio of containers owned by the entity in which the non-controlling interests maintain their ownership and a continuing decrease in the proportion of disposition income attributable to the non-controlling interests compared to the portion allocated to Triton.


48


Comparison of the Year Ended December 31, 2016 to Year Ended December 31, 2015
The following table summarizes our comparative results for the periods indicated (in thousands):
 
Year Ended December 31, 2016
 
Year Ended December 31, 2015
 
Variance
Leasing revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
Operating leases
$
813,357

 
$
699,810

 
$
113,547

Finance leases
15,337

 
8,029

 
7,308

Total leasing revenues
828,694

 
707,839

 
120,855

 
 
 
 
 


Equipment trading revenues
16,418

 

 
16,418

Equipment trading expenses
(15,800
)
 

 
(15,800
)
Trading margin
618

 

 
618

 
 
 
 
 


Net (loss) gain on sale of leasing equipment
(20,347
)
 
2,013

 
(22,360
)
 
 
 
 
 


Operating expenses:
 
 
 
 


Depreciation and amortization
392,592

 
300,470

 
92,122

Direct operating expenses
84,256

 
54,440

 
29,816

Administrative expenses
65,618

 
53,435

 
12,183

Transaction and other costs
66,916

 
22,185

 
44,731

Provision (reversal) for doubtful accounts
23,304

 
(2,156
)
 
25,460

Total operating expenses
632,686

 
428,374

 
204,312

Operating income
176,279

 
281,478

 
(105,199
)
Other expenses:
 
 
 
 

Interest and debt expense
184,014

 
140,644

 
43,370

Realized loss on derivative instruments, net
3,438

 
5,496

 
(2,058
)
Unrealized (gain) loss on derivative instruments, net
(4,405
)
 
2,240

 
(6,645
)
Write-off of debt costs
141

 
1,170

 
(1,029
)
Other (income) expense, net
(1,076
)
 
211

 
(1,287
)
Total other expenses
182,112

 
149,761

 
32,351

(Loss) income before income taxes
(5,833
)
 
131,717

 
(137,550
)
Income tax (benefit) expense
(48
)
 
4,048

 
(4,096
)
Net (loss) income
$
(5,785
)
 
$
127,669

 
$
(133,454
)
Less: income attributable to non-controlling interest
7,732

 
16,580

 
(8,848
)
Net (loss) income attributable to shareholders
$
(13,517
)
 
$
111,089

 
$
(124,606
)
Our operating performance and revenues were significantly impacted by the Merger on July 12, 2016 and the subsequent inclusion of TAL's results of operations and equipment fleet in our financial results and operating metrics. TCIL has been treated as the acquirer in the Merger for accounting purposes, and therefore, the results of operations for Triton, included herein, for the periods prior to the date of the Merger are for TCIL operations alone.

49


Leasing revenues.    Per diem revenue represents revenue earned under operating lease contracts; fee and ancillary lease revenue represents fees billed for the pick-up and drop-off of containers in certain geographic locations and billings of certain reimbursable operating costs such as repair and handling expenses; and finance lease revenue represents interest income earned under finance lease contracts.
 
Year Ended December 31, 2016
 
Year Ended December 31, 2015
 
Variance
 
(in thousands)
Leasing revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
Operating lease revenues:
 
 
 
 
 
Per diem revenues
$
762,011

 
$
657,560

 
$
104,451

Fee and ancillary lease revenues
51,346

 
42,250

 
9,096

Total operating lease revenues
813,357

 
699,810

 
113,547

Finance lease revenues
15,337

 
8,029

 
7,308

Total leasing revenues
$
828,694

 
$
707,839

 
$
120,855

Total leasing revenues were $828.7 million, net of lease intangible amortization of $55.5 million, in 2016 compared to $707.8 million in 2015, an increase of $120.9 million. Leasing revenues in 2016 increased by $203.7 million due to the inclusion of TAL leasing revenue from the date of the Merger, off-setting an $82.8 million decrease in leasing revenue from the TCIL fleet compared to 2015. There was no lease intangible amortization in 2015 as this lease intangible was a result of the Merger.
Per diem revenues were $762.0 million in 2016 compared to $657.6 million in 2015, an increase of $104.5 million. The primary reasons for this increase are as follows:
$179.7 million increase due to the inclusion of per diem revenue, net of lease intangible amortization from the TAL fleet from the date of the Merger partially offset by;

$58.9 million decrease due to a decrease in average CEU per diem rates; and a

$16.3 million decrease due to a decrease in the average number of containers on-hire under operating leases of 59,993 CEU.

Fee and ancillary lease revenues were $51.3 million in 2016 compared to $42.3 million in 2015, an increase of $9.1 million. The primary reasons for this increase are as follows:
$17.0 million increase due to the inclusion of fees and ancillary revenues from the TAL fleet from the date of the Merger; partially offset by

$7.9 million decrease in re-delivery fees due to a decrease in the volume of customer re-deliveries particularly in the second half of 2016.
Finance lease revenues were $15.3 million in 2016 compared to $8.0 million in 2015, an increase of $7.3 million. This increase was primarily due to the inclusion of $7.0 million of finance lease revenue from the TAL fleet from the date of the Merger. The average finance lease portfolio remained relatively flat with the scheduled runoff of the existing portfolio offset by the addition of a large finance lease in the fourth quarter of 2016.
Trading margin.    Prior to the Merger, Triton did not have a trading business. Trading margin was $0.6 million in 2016 due to the inclusion of trading margin from the TAL fleet from the date of the Merger.
Net (loss) gain on sale