Net Investment in Direct Finance Leases

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2011

Net Investment in Direct Finance Leases [Abstract]

Net Investment in Direct Finance Leases

(4)Net Investment in Direct Finance Leases

The following table represents the components of the Company's net investment in direct finance leases (in thousands):

	December 31, 2011			December 31, 2010
Gross finance lease receivables (1)	$	52,673		$	15,290
Unearned income (2)		(14,924	)		(3,456	)
Net investment in finance leases	$	37,749		$	11,834

(1) At the inception of the lease, the Company records the total minimum lease payments, executory costs, if any, and unguaranteed residual value as gross finance lease receivables. The gross finance lease receivable is reduced as customer payments are received.  Approximately $6.3 million and $4.0 million of unguaranteed residual value at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively, were included in gross finance lease receivables. There were no executory costs included in gross finance lease receivables as of December 31, 2011 and 2010.

(2) The difference between the gross finance lease receivable and the cost of the equipment or carrying amount at the lease inception is recorded as unearned income. Unearned income together with initial direct costs, are amortized to income over the lease term so as to produce a constant periodic rate of return. There were no unamortized initial direct costs as of December 31, 2011 and 2010.

In order to estimate the allowance for losses contained in the gross finance lease receivables, the Company reviews the credit worthiness of its customers on an ongoing basis. The review includes monitoring credit quality indicators, the aging of customer receivables and general economic conditions.

The categories of gross finance lease receivables based on the Company's internal customer credit ratings can be described as follows:

Tier 1-These customers are typically large international shipping lines that have been in business for many years and have world-class operating capabilities and significant financial resources. In most cases, the Company has had a long commercial relationship with these customers and currently maintains regular communication with them at several levels of management which provides the Company with insight into the customer's current operating and financial performance. In the Company's view, these customers have the greatest ability to withstand cyclical down turns and would likely have greater access to needed capital than lower-rated customers. The Company views the risk of default for Tier 1 customers to range from minimal to modest.

Tier 2-These customers are typically either smaller shipping lines or freight forwarders with less operating scale or with a high degree of financial leverage, and accordingly the Company views these customers as subject to higher volatility in financial performance over the business cycle. The Company generally expects these customers to have less access to capital markets or other sources of financing during cyclical down turns. The Company views the risk of default for Tier 2 customers as moderate.

Tier 3-Customers in this category exhibit volatility in payments on a regular basis. The Company has initiated or implemented plans to recover equipment on lease to these customers and believes that default is likely, or has already occurred.

Based on the above categories, the Company's gross finance lease receivables were as follows (in thousands):

	December 31, 2011		December 31, 2010
Tier 1	$	7,373	$	7,278
Tier 2		45,300		8,012
Tier 3		-		-
	$	52,673	$	15,290

Contractual maturities of the Company's gross finance lease receivables subsequent to December 31, 2011 are as follows (in thousands):

2012	$	10,374
2013		8,289
2014		7,228
2015		10,912
2016		7,002
2017 and thereafter		8,868
	$	52,673