AMC 電影院 (AMC) 2015 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Greetings and welcome to AMC Entertainment's second-quarter 2015 earnings conference call.

(Operator Instructions)

As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to your host, John Merriwether, Vice President, Investor Relations for AMC Entertainment. Thank you. You may begin.

Good afternoon, everyone. I'm John Merriwether, Vice President, Investor Relations, and I would like to welcome you to AMC's second-quarter 2015 earnings conference call. Before we get started with our prepared remarks, I'd like to remind everyone that as referenced in our press release issued earlier today, we simultaneously posted a CFO commentary on the investor relations page of our website at AMCTheaters.com.

I'd also like to remind you that some of the comments made by Management during this conference call may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of section 27a of the Securities Act of 1933 as amended, and section 21e of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended. Forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions and are discussed in our public filings, including our most recent 10K. Statements made throughout this presentation are based on current estimates of future events and the Company has no obligation to update or correct these estimates. Listeners are cautioned that any such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve risks and uncertainty, and that actual results may differ materially as result of these various factors. We caution you not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements. And the forward-looking statements made during this call speak only as of the date of this call.

In addition, comments made on this call may refer to certain measures, such as EBITDA adjusted EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA margin, which are not in accordance with GAAP. However, Management believes these results more clearly reflect operating performance. For a full reconciliation of EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA to GAAP results in accordance with Regulation G, please see our press release issued earlier today and furnished as an exhibit to our form 8K dated July 29, 2015, which is located in the investor relations area of our website at www.AMCTheaters.com.

After our prepared remarks there will be a brief question-and-answer session. Joining me on the call today are Gerry Lopez, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Craig Ramsey, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. I will now turn the call over to Gerry.

Thanks, John, and thank you, everyone, for joining us this afternoon. Before we get going with a discussion of the quarterly results, let me just say on behalf of the 20,000 associates at AMC and our families that our hearts, thoughts and prayers are with those affected by the tragic events in Lafayette, Louisiana last week. On behalf of our family associates the AMC Cares Foundation has made contributions to the memorials chosen by the victims' families to honor their memories. We are saddened by what happened, but admire the bravery of those guests, theater personnel and first responders who brought the situation quickly under control. Safety and security been, is and will continue to be, amongst our top priorities and we will continue to strive to make our theaters as safe as possible.

Now on to the quarter. The old adage that records are meant to be broken was never more evident than in the second quarter of 2015 as the industry box office in general recorded new highs. And AMC, specifically, shattered multiple records. From revenues to adjusted EBITDA, from gross profit to food and beverage in aggregate and per patron, to guest satisfaction scores, AMC raised the bar higher than ever before as our strategic initiatives took a pretty strong industry box office and made it work even harder for us. That's enough words, so let's talk some numbers.

Compared to the second quarter of a year ago, AMC's total revenues in Q2 2015 grew 13% to $821.1 million, while adjusted EBITDA grew nearly 20% to $157.8 million. We like the flow-through those growth rates will imply, who wouldn't? But we like even better that both of these figures are the highest we have never reported for any quarter in our 95-year history. Indeed, this second quarter was AMC's biggest revenue quarter ever and biggest adjusted EBITDA quarter ever, period, bar none.

Let me break it down a little bit by talking first about admissions revenue. By our count, the industry box office for Q2 was $3.1 billion, in itself the highest industry-grossing quarter ever. This $3 billion or so was a 9.4% increase compared to the second quarter a year ago. That's not bad, except AMC performed even better, growing admissions revenue 11.4% to $533.4 million, marking our highest-grossing quarter on record, and a 200-basis point outperformance to the industry.

Our 11.4% admissions revenue growth in the second quarter was fueled by two things: one, a very strong 7.3% increase in attendance, better than the industry by 140 basis points; and two, a 3.8% increase in average ticket price, which for us now stands at an all-time high of $9.91. For the circuit, on a per-screen basis the revenue numbers are equally strong, up 10% year on year, and a nearly 120-basis point over-performance to the industry's approximate 8.8% gain.

What drove all of this? Simply stated, the fast cars, avenging super heroes and unruly dinosaurs of this quarter were best enjoyed in the premium format for which audiences know and love. Take IMAX for example, our 150 screens, by far the most of any circuit in the world, were up 44% for the quarter. The 3-D format was also a contributor, up 34% in box office dollars. Even our newest format, Dolby Cinema at AMC Prime, had positive admissions growth, this in spite of having nearly 6% of the AMC prime locations off-line for conversions and retro-fits.

But as strong as all of these were in Q2, when it comes to size, penetration and broad impact, once again no one thing and no one format can match the recliner remodels. We now have, of June 30, far more of these than anyone else, with 826 recliner-equipped screens in 70 theaters across the country. And boy, did they light it up.

First screen admissions revenue at the recliner remodels was 20.1%. The industry was up 8.8 % as I said a moment ago, which is again is not shabby, except our recliners outperformed by 1,130 basis points by themselves. These screens will be a top-five circuit in the US and yet they more than doubled the industry's strongest period of growth in quite a while, proving that guests are driven by more than just the movie slate.

Movie-goers discriminate based on experience, on you all know we like to call comfort and convenience. We are very proud of these results and believe that our business will continue to grow as we continue to invest. And make no mistake, invest we will. As the remodel investments deliver not only the results I outlined a moment ago, but they continue to exceed our 25% return hurdle by a pretty wide margin.

Just to give you an idea of how we are investing to grow, right now as we speak, we have currently 10 theaters in various phases of recliner reseat renovations. And later in August we expect the units under construction to be at an all-time high, maybe into the high teens or more. Short-term pain, but it bodes well for our future. Of course, the success has brought about many imitators. Imitation is, after all, the sincerest form of flattery.

Competition is nothing new, though, and we believe that the AMC guest experience continues to offer a complete package, a great value that goes beyond just the one idea, as good as that idea may be. This is not a shocker, but our results will support that theory. For example, a little more than a year ago we knew that to drive convenience we needed to develop our own proprietary online ticketing engine, which would make AMC tickets available from more websites and would make choosing a movie and buying a ticket to AMC easier than it has ever been before.

We reported on this during our prior calls, but here we are now, barely a year later with our second-quarter Internet ticketing revenues up 36% over last year, as we sold 11.6 million tickets online, representing approximately 21% of our total. Now this compares to 14% of our total tickets sold on the Internet a year ago, a better than 52% improvement. Importantly, our proprietary ticketing engine AMCTheaters.com continues to perform well for our guests, accounting for about 38% of our online tickets sold in the second quarter, a 46% increase compared to the second quarter a year ago.

All of these improves the overall guest experience at AMC. And it also adds to our unslighted revenues and gives us greater influence over our guests' entire movie-going night out. We simply want to make it easier and more convenient to have a great experience at AMC.

Of course, no experience at any of our theaters would be complete without something to eat and drink while you're enjoying your latest newly favorite movie. And our record-setting second-quarter food and beverage results clearly say more and more guests are enjoying the complete package in more and more of our theaters. For evidence, look no further than our food and beverage revenues, which in the second quarter grew 18.4% versus prior year, to a new record of $250.5 million. That's a lot of Coke and popcorn, people. And a lot more than just Coke and popcorn, a lot more food and beverage too, because to heed those kind of numbers you need more than just the tried-and-true.

To give you an idea of how far we've come with this initiative, let's level set for a moment. Back in 2011, the early days, about 64% of our guests bought something from a concession stand. Although that incidence rate was pretty good, it did mean though, that about 70 million guests, the combined attendance of all teams during the full season of major league baseball, did not buy a thing. You've heard us say that before. Well, what we have not updated you on, but will now, is that by the end of 2014 and since, approximately 68% of our guests are buying some food and beverage in our buildings. And those almost 400 incremental basis points of incidents mean that today there are an additional 6.6 million food and beverage consumers in our buildings. Hence, the record-setting results.

And we think that we're just scratching the surface. Our total food and beverage revenues and growth for the quarter were not the only food and beverage record. In fact, I'm even more excited about our 10.2% growth in food and beverage revenues per patron, to another Company record and all-time high of $4.65. That's six consecutive quarters now, every quarter since we have been public, that we've reported a record quarter in food and beverage revenues per patron.

We are very proud of that track record and its duration, which confirms the strength and sustainability of our work in the enhanced food and beverage strategic action front. Not to be forgotten is that we achieve our targeted flow-throughs as food and beverage gross profit per patron also grew 10.2% to a new record of $3.99. This performance is a result of the successful execution of our strategy to serve our guests and ensure that they have a variety of food and beverage options available to them that are both convenient and satisfying.

And speaking of satisfaction, overall guest satisfaction that is, for the second quarter in a row we set an all-time high with our guests. We had top box satisfaction score for the whole quarter was 61.4, the second time we finished a quarter above 60 and 221 basis point higher than prior year, an incredible feat when the customer loads in our buildings are growing, as they have all year. In the retail service industry these are world-class numbers, the kind you need to build engagement and loyalty with your audiences. And credit here goes to our theater teams, without whom there is no magic at the movies.

Ladies and gentlemen, the consistent unifying theme in all of these results in one word is innovation. Over the last few quarters we have shared with you many of the ideas we're experimenting with, testing and are preparing to roll out. It will take me the better part of this afternoon to give you a recap of all that we have going on, and believe it or not, I want to get to the Q& A too. So I'll spare you for now. But know this, it goes well beyond recliners. Whether it's our new, as I originally announced, arrangement with Paramount, our continued work in social media, our aggressive use of guest space and technology, or the deployment of Dolby Cinema at AMC Prime, the list can go on. The point is that at AMC we've made innovation and bold thinking a way of life, and our guests have noticed and are rewarding us for it. For that we are very grateful.

Now this seems like an appropriate spot to bring my formal comments to a close and hand the call over to Craig for a few words before we take your questions. As I do that, I would be lying if I did not confess to mixed emotions. Although the time to move on has come, I am now and will always be, very proud of what we have accomplished here over the last 6.5 years. Most of you know the story and I'll let you be the judges of our work.

But most of all, we let our guests decide. They seem to have a point of view, and after all, it is for them that we actually do all of this. Personally, I could not be more optimistic about AMC's future. We have an innovative culture which remains in place. And we have a proven guest leadership strategy that has years of runway left. Most importantly, I am leaving AMC in great hands.

I am confident that the Management Team under Craig's leadership will continue to successfully execute on this strategy, and I am looking forward to great things to come out of AMC. I have a vested interest. I'll be watching and I know who to call.

With that, I will turn the call over to Craig. One more time, Mr. Ramsey.

Thanks, Gerry. These last 6.5 years with Gerry have been incredible and filled with great accomplishment for AMC, as we have driven significant value for our guests, our associates and our shareholders. Gerry's vision for a differentiated growth strategy was exactly what AMC needed when he arrived in 2009. Along the way he cultivated an enduring guest-centered culture committed to driving results and innovation for many years to come. We are grateful for his leadership and me personally for his friendship. And we thank him for positioning AMC to lead the industry into the future.

We are very excited about AMC's future. We've had a record-breaking first half to 2015 and we are continuing to see tangible benefits from our strategic initiatives and investments. When we measure ourselves against the competition within a 20-mile radius of our buildings, we continue to see approximately 6 percentage points of box office per screen outperformance, dating back to April of 2011. This metric shows, on a detailed per-screen level, that our customer-centric approach is the right thing for our guests and our shareholders over the long-term.

We believe our guest experience leader strategy differentiates us from our peers and our 2015 results bear that out. We will continue to innovate and invest in our portfolio to drive meaningful returns, having touched only a fraction of our circuit thus far. And when attractive acquisition opportunities arise, like our recently announced transaction to acquire Starplex Cinemas, we will be acquisitive.

We are very excited about the definitive agreement to acquire Starplex. It's a great circuit with theaters in complementary markets, and we believe there is value to be unlocked by deploying our strategic initiatives. We expect the transaction will be accretive from a cash flow, EBITDA and EPS perspective in 2016 and beyond, exclusive of any one-time transaction costs. And we look forward to welcoming Starplex into the AMC family of theaters by year end.

So to our guests and shareholders, thank you for continuing to choose AMC. We will continue to focus on being the customer experience leader in movie-going, and in doing so, exceed your expectations and drive greater value. And we look ahead to the balance of 2015, the prospects for a record box office remain intact and our future looks as bright as ever.

Thank you for listening, and I will turn the call back to the operator so we can take a few questions.

(Operator Instructions)

Ben Mogil, Stifel.

Hi, good afternoon, and thank you for taking my question. And, Gerry, I'm sure we all feel same way -- you will be very much missed on these calls going forward.

Thank you, Ben.

So, wanted to talk to you a little bit about the quarter. There's about a $16-million increase year over year on the other film -- on the other expense line -- other theater-operating expense line. Of that increase, how much do you think is tied to the high royalties around IMAX and 3D? How much of this is fixed costs? Trying to get a sense of how much of the cost structure in that line item that you see as variable versus fixed.

Well, I would say the year-over-year impact, if you're looking at the total operating expense line, is probably about 3%. On those premium format -- oh, I'm sorry, I was comparing payment processing and premium format. The premium format's probably about 2%, I think, year-over-year increase of the total operating expense.

What I would add, Ben, is we're playing in a new delicate balancing game where you have some of these other expense -- some of these expenses of operating the theaters showing up in the other line and migrating across different lines of the P&L, specifically, as we fight some of the increases in labor costs, because of minimum-wage pressure, et cetera, et cetera. What you see us is trying to shift around and use technology to defer some of the labor costs. Well, technology inevitably is going to come with its own costs. Oh, by the way, it also comes with a credit-card processing fee. Oh, by the way, if the movie is going to the premium format, then on top of that you have the IMAX and the RealD licensing fees you've always had.

So what you're beginning to see is that, as we adapt to the new operating models and new pressures on this cost, you will see things migrating across different lines of the P&L. We'll try to give you guys as much visibility as we can to some of these things, but that's why you see us harping on, for example, the work on the internet and the internet ticketing engine. Every time we sell a ticket on the internet, the processing at the theater reduces and that reduces our labor load. So lower labor costs there, but, gee, now you got an increase in the credit-card processing.

So it's really a balance across all of the different pressure points in the P&L that we're trying to keep an eye on. At the end of the day, it's the total operating expense that we're going to try to clamp down on, even as customers adjust, and we adjust, by using technology to fight some of that off.

Okay, that's helpful. Absolutely. And then the second question is, and it may have just been me, but I'm trying to understand this. Two benchmarks that you've referred to, 9.4% and 8.8%. Can you delineate the two different benchmarks on the industry box office?

Well, 9.4% is absolute year-over-year and the 8.8% would be on a per-screen basis.

Got it, okay. And that's -- was there that much screen growth in the industry in the quarter on a year-over-year basis? That seems like a pretty big divergence.

It was about half of that, only made about 1/2 point, 6/10 of a point in screen growth. The fact is, new builds continue. We're not putting out many, but we have seen a pretty solid continuation of the new builds. The screen count, it's up from what we can track, about 1/2 point for the industry. We, ourselves, were up a little better than 1 point, about 1 1/4 points in screen count.

Now some of that has to do with the spot acquisitions. None of that includes, obviously, the Starplex announcement. So, yes, it's perhaps a little more than some other quarters, Ben, but it's a quarter shift. It's not a -- I wouldn't call any of the trends that we've seen in screen count and new builds an anomaly from anything that we've seen in years past.

Okay, that's great. Thank you very much.

You bet, thank you.

Eric Handler, MKM Partners.

Yes, thanks a lot. I wonder if you could focus on the film rent for a quick moment. Obviously, in the last 24 hours it's been a little bit of a hot-button issue -- or the last 48 hours. I wonder if you could talk -- are you seeing any changes with Hollywood in terms of cyclical pressures of film rents of films doing so well you have escalators hitting and driving film rents higher? Or any secular changes?

So, Eric, let me be about as direct as I can be. So this is the Wednesday call, not the Monday call. And we're well aware of what you're referring to. The answer is, no, we are not. Yes, our film rent expense was up year on year for the quarter by about 170 or so basis points, because of the concentration of the big films.

The fact of the matter is, when you step back and look at it, the film rent expense was not out of line for a big quarter with big movies. The pressures that puts on the calls that we're seeing with the studios on this front are no different than I've ever seen across my career between a supplier and his retailer. We are the retailer side of things.

There are many ways in which we fight back on that pressure point, on that cost item, whether it is by monetizing some of the marketing assets, by shifting some of our pricing strategy, when we went to tax on top, for example, at the box office. There are any number of things that we do to fight it back.

So whereas, yes, our film rent quarter on quarter -- year on year for the quarter, rather, was up, and up 170 basis points. The fact of the matter is, they are not out of control, they are not out of line, they are not an anomaly, we're not seeing an escalation in scales. This is completely as we would've expected, given the size of the movies and the concentrations of the movies.

Perhaps more important of all is that the gross profit for the quarter -- the gross profit per screen for the quarter was at an all-time high. So, yes, sure, our costs might have gone up, but so was the gross profit. Frankly, if we can keep that cost -- it is bound to come up -- under control, and we continue to drop the profitability on a per-screen and per-patron basis like we did in this quarter, that's a trade-off that we'll go ahead and take all day long.

So not quite sure what happened for other folks out there in the marketplace, but for us it is completely under control and not out of line versus our expectations. Now Mr. Ramsey's going to want to add some color here.

I'd add one point. And Gerry's point, I'd repeat, that gross profit per screen -- we watch the percentages and we negotiate with the studios as aggressively as anyone does. We also really focus on that statistic that he gave you -- gross profit per screen up 6% over last year in the same quarter, and to a record. So another record set.

The other thing is, it does feed -- the movies like this do feed our food and beverage business, we're also mindful of that. And that's driven our food and beverage per patron up about 10% and our gross profit per patron on that business up about 10% as well.

So, a lot of patrons coming through the door. Higher take rate on food and beverage driving higher results on the food side of our business as well.

I'll close on the point, Eric, by just offering two thoughts, looking into the future. We're not in the business of trying to forecast too much in this volatile industry, but two thoughts.

A, the pricing schemes are in play in this industry today versus those that might have been in play in this industry six -- five, six, seven years ago. I think that you'll find a lot more flexibility and a lot more room for exhibitors to defer some of those costs and pass along some of the costs of some of the more expensive and higher films onto the customer. That trend, over the last five or six years, I would expect will not at all slow down in the future.

The day where movies will be priced differentially is closer today than it was a year ago and two years ago. You can pretty much take that to the bank. I cannot give you a specific day as to when it may happen, but we are headed in that direction -- of that there is no doubt.

The second thought that I'll offer you -- new arrangements with the studios. I've said for a while now that there are many touch points between an exhibitor and a studio, and new arrangements, like the one you saw us announce a couple of weeks ago with Paramount, are indicative of a new emerging relationship with our suppliers. Where, you know what, some of these film rents may be deferred or it may be absorbed in different ways when we have, all of a sudden, a different scheme for some specific genre of movies, or for some specific film. Those type of arrangements, I will also expect, will continue and grow broader into the future.

So, I totally understand the point of film rent and it is a big one. It is the single largest expense item in our P&L as exhibitors. But the fact of the matter is that there are many tools and many ways that we can address that cost pressure while driving our profitability as we did in the quarter and as Craig indicated.

Does that answer your question? I want to make sure that was said.

Very helpful, Gerry, very helpful. Just as a quick follow-up, in the past you've talked about some of the key drivers of your growth in concessions. I wonder if you could break out how much of the 10% growth was alcohol sales, how much was dine-in theaters. I wonder if you could walk through some of those metrics.

We'll give you a little bit of a broader breakdown. Of the $0.43, I think $0.27 of it was pricing and about $0.15, $0.16 was related to the initiatives. And the pricing goes back to the tax-on-top strategy that we implemented and we're still seeing the impacts of that -- and will, as we go forward, until its run rate becomes a permanent addition for us.

But $0.15 from initiatives and that's spread across all the different initiatives fairly evenly. I hope that is helpful.

You're quite right, Eric, the single most impactful, from a financial perspective, of initiatives, are the MacGuffins, our lounges, the bars. We're up to 108 as of the end of June. They are adding about $0.37 per patron when we put them into a building. $0.28 of the $0.37 are gross profit.

So, quite the successful run that we continue. 108 is about a third of the fleet, a little less than that. Of course, permitting and all of that is the regulator there, because our return on investment on these things, it's just phenomenal.

So you are quite right in singling that out. That particular initiative has worked well, continues to work well, and we expect it will in the future.

Thank you very much, and, Gerry, best of luck to you.

Thank you, sir.

Mike Hickey, Benchmark.

Hey, guys, thanks for taking my questions. Congratulations on an awesome quarter.

Thank you.

Given some of the recliner installations, if you could provide a little more insight into your admission growth per screen? It seems like a few factors, attendance and ticket price growth, it seems given the strength this late that maybe this is more ticket price growth in the quarter versus attendance? That would be helpful.

Specifically on the recliners, is that -- or across the board? If you could clarify it.

The admission growth per screen from your recliner installations, up over 20%. I'm just curious how that balances between attendance and ticket price increases.

The ATP on the recliners specifically, Mike, our ATP shows about a 4% improvement year on year and a balance then coming from attendance. So that 20% is mostly attendance driven -- 15, 16 points of it was attendance driven and about 4 points was ATP driven, average ticket price driven.

Okay, awesome, thank you. Then last question from me. Curious on your partnership with Paramount to accelerate movies to digital. It would seem on the surface this has opened Pandora's box here as it relates to windowing. Of course that's something that's been aggressively defended historically from your peers. And I wonder, from a risk perspective, thinking about the potential of [upping] the valuation of theater content would seemingly outweigh the incremental monies you'd earn from participating in the digital delivery of those movies.

We see it a little differently. The truth is, this is a test. It's limited to the two films. It is indicative of our willingness to listen to our studio partners and figure out how to make the pie grow for all of us. We need more films. For a studio to feel limited in the genre and the type and the size of films that they can bring out because of the economics that drive their side of the industry, it doesn't really help us either.

The fact is that we have, as an industry, as a segment of the industry, used this very broad brush to paint all films in the exact same color. Well, we know that's not true. That's just not reality. So, to not experiment, to not be willing to listen, to not be willing to strike a new arrangement that financially could be very lucrative, not just because of the arrangement for the specific two movies, but on what it may imply in terms of product flow in the years to come, we just did not think that was smart.

So as we listen and as we try to think of different ideas, it seemed to us that it was important to do this. Now, to be clear, we talk about the window opening may be in the arrangement. The one thing that has not been said enough -- theatrical window continues to be first and continues to be the single most important. No better window exists for the studio than the theatrical window where every customer pays every time. There's just no better quality in any other electronic or home or otherwise delivery method for the studios. The theatrical window continues to be first and the theatrical window continues to be important, even with this new arrangement. So that's a point that has been lost in the shuffle as we all try to wrap our heads around what does it all mean, number one.

Number two, we are in control. We are equal participants with the studio as to what content gets included in this kind of arrangement or not.

Number three, there's a screen-count threshold on the thing, right? So, hey, when you add all of this in there, when you add the fact that you need to try to continue to innovate and experiment and find ways in which the economic equation continues to work for the studio and continues work for us until the years to come, this seemed like a very rational, thoughtful approach to try and figure out how a window can be shaped differently for different kinds of product.

The only thing I'd add, it is -- just to be clear, it is the first time a studio has offered an exhibitor downstream participation post-theatrical. So there's give and take here. And just to reiterate, to Gerry's point, this is a test. We've always been willing to try different things and a lot of times that proves to be the future, and lucrative or profitable for us. We think there's an opportunity here -- we will see as the test results come out.

Does that answer your question, Mike? Does that give you a little bit more context and clarity?

(Laughter). Yes, you answered it and then some. Thanks, Gerry.

(Laughter). Happy to help, bud. That's what we're here to do. (Laughter).

David Miller, Topeka Capital Markets.

Hi, guys, I just have one quick question. I noticed that -- let me know if my numbers are wrong -- that you added 10 reseated theaters over the last 90 days. Is that generally, Craig, the pace that we should expect over the next, say, two, three, four quarters? Thanks a lot.

Look, I think between now and the end of the year, as an example, may be a good way to think about it, probably -- which is a six-month period -- probably 15 to 20 is probably a range. And then you look into next year, probably 30 to 40. It depends a little bit on the lease. We've always talked about the fact that we try to align with the lease life and try to strike the deal with the landlord when it's most opportunistic for us to do so. But I think that, that's probably indicative of the go-forward at lease pacing.

We've been building up towards that. I mean 4 to 6 would be more our pace and now we're stepping up more into the 8 to 10. This is construction. You never know what you're going to find when you rip out the carpet. But that has been our objective, to step it up little bit into that 10 range. That's been aspirational. And we've hit it. But it's six to eight, eight in that range, it's a pretty good cadence for us.

Has the duration at which it takes, or in terms of the length of time that it takes to completely reseat an asset, has that been generally consistent across most of the projects that you've done, let's call it, I don't know, 60 days or something like that? Or is it diverse, generally based on where you are in terms of location. I'm just curious. Thanks.

The construction timing has been pretty consistent. The thing that drives it more is the number of screens in any given building, when you're doing 18 or 20 screens versus when you're doing 10 or 12, obviously, so that may take a little longer.

Sure.

The one variability that we've seen, if anything, has been that the cost of transforming any one screen has escalated some. Now, part of it is, because of course, in some of the markets we're now doing the remodels, it's just higher labor costs, higher material costs. And the other piece is, the economy is coming along and construction is picking up, so it's costing more to hire an electrician and a construction laborer today than it did two years ago.

Yes.

So, we've seen some escalation on the costs and some variability there, market to market, more than we've variability in the actual construction timelines.

Yes, the other thing to keep in mind is these are buildings we are familiar with. We know the bones. And we're a little more intelligent going in, I guess, as opposed to a new theater situation.

Got you. No problem. Thank you.

Eric Wold, B. Riley.

Thank you and good afternoon. Couple of questions. Two on the remodels. One, as you look into the remainder part of this year and into next year with what you've got planned for the reseats, is there further opportunity to do some acceleration as you did towards the end of last year?

And then, two, when you think about the landlord contributions, are those -- fixed is not the word I'm looking for -- but do you use a same formula going forward, or as you get better results and better attendance draws out of yours, do you have a little more negotiating power as you go back to get those done?

I think the acceleration next year question, we're in our planning process and I quoted -- gave you some idea of what we -- the range of outcomes for next year on a number reseats. We'll look at how our free cash flow develops for this year and build that into our planning process, and consider whether we have an opportunity to accelerate. Probably not ready to commit to that at this point in time. The second question was --.

Accelerate?

No, we talked about the acceleration.

What kind of landlord --?

Oh, yes, it's held fairly constant. I will say we probably did improve our leverage in that negotiation. Each deal is a negotiation and they're all different. But there's a trend that establishes as you deal with large numbers. And probably from the early year, those that are now two years old, three years old, since then and since the popularity, the whole concept has gained traction, we probably did gain a little bit of leverage.

And we're seeing the contribution to CapEx still averaging around 35%. I don't know that there's necessarily more leverage there potentially, but I think the popularity impact we've already seen. Everybody, I think all the landlord -- most all of the landlord community knows the power of a remodel and a recliner reseat remodel. So I think we have experienced that basically.

The only other element, Eric, that I would add is, keep in mind, these remodels are pretty extensive renovations, right? We go in and essentially strip it down to the bare concrete and go from there. But besides that, we are also building the MacGuffins. We're also doing the Dolby Cinema conversions. We're still looking for appropriate locations in which to add IMAX. So those are not the only projects that our crews are out there executing against.

So, in balance, although part of us wants to go out and get them all done in the next three months, the fact of the matter is, that just wouldn't be physically possible. And we are not yet prepared to go all out against a single element of the strategy and abandoning all of the other ones. So it's really a question of moving forward across all of these opportunities on all of these fronts. And we like this balance, as I call it, that we've been able to achieve, where we bring all of these different ideas forward at their own pace, but not leaving any of them behind. And trying to improve, through it all, the overall experience that the customer sees when they walk in the door.

Perfect. And last question. As more and more of the reseats that have been hitting their one- and two-year anniversaries, has been any change in the normal extra 10% ticket price hike you take on those anniversaries? Or any change in the response of consumers?

No, the trends actually have remained remarkably consistent. We see this big year one after the remodel, fantastic bumps -- 50%, 60%, 70% year on year immediately following the remodel. They moderate in year two, they come back into the teens. And then, by year three, they begin to mimic the industry, the attendance trends.

The food and beverage per patron continues to escalate. Now, part of that is because it is a better experience. Part of it is because we installed the bars. Part of it is because we put in the Coke Freestyle machines.

So what we have seen over the last three years, even as the assets age, the year-on-year increases, of course, the numbers bring you down. But the trend has continued remarkably consistent -- frankly, not only was a surprise, but it has met and exceeded our expectations for the sustainability on a go-forward basis.

Got it. Thank you, guys. Thank you, Gerry.

Thank you.

Barton Crockett, FBR Capital Markets.

Okay, thank you for taking the question. Gerry, I wanted to hear you out on this one question, which is the timing to leave AMC now. I was wondering if you could tell us a little bit more about why now, when things are so interesting. You can take a bit of a victory lap on some of the innovations that you have done there. Why not continue to ride it through? Why make this change right now?

Thank you for implying that I could even take a victory lap (laughter). The battle is not won, so I'm not sure that a victory lap -- but thank you though, Barton. Look, the truth is, an opportunity came up -- an opportunity that an old friend, an old boss, a guy that I've known for a dozen years, called up with.

There's never a great time, there are times that may be better than others. The truth is, the Company is hitting -- is firing on all cylinders. As you heard us say in the prepared remarks, and the press release will underline, we've had the best quarter in our 95-year history. To the extent that there is one time that is better than the other, on top will tend to be one of those times that is somewhat better.

The fact is that the team is in place. The fact is that the strategy is in place. The fact is that the strategy has got runway left. And that the second version of that strategy, or what's to come next, that work is now beginning. And it will be the perfect timing for a new leader to come in and put his or her fingerprints all over that next iteration, that next version of the strategy.

So not going to try and tell you that the timing to do this is great, because I know that great timing ever comes, but it's certainly about an appropriate a time as I suspect it will ever get -- coupled with the fact that what I'm going to go do is an opportunity that presented itself when it presented itself. It's a friend, he's ready to retire and wants someone to come in and, frankly, try to do some of what we have done here, over there. And see if these ideas and some of the work that we have done here, that we have been engaged in for the last four, six years, does some of that rub off? Does some of that translate into a different industry?

It's an adventure, and, frankly, that's what appeals. It's that sense of adventure, that sense of potential that exists over there. And doing that while I know that this equation here at AMC is totally solid: strategy, team, the execution -- everything is right.

I do appreciate the sentiment for the victory lap. I'm not taking one, because the work's not finished and the battle is not won. We're enjoined in the battle, but the battle is not won. Thank you, though, Barton, for the question. I do sincerely appreciate it.

Okay, and I will miss your presence on these calls. It's been very nice.

Thank you.

But I wanted to switch a little bit, Craig, if I could, to a couple of number questions. I think I heard you say that you guys outperformed the industry by 1 percentage point. You outperformed your peers in a 20-mile radius by about 6 percentage points.

And I think in previous quarters you guys have quoted similar type of trends. Does this say that your markets are underperforming the industry? What are you seeing there?

No, I don't think so. I think if the way we look at the AMC markets in the quarter, they were up 10%, almost 11% as well, I think. So I'm not seeing that. And on a year-to-date basis, I think similar as well.

We're trying to think of some of the geography and the differentials. And the truth is, Barton, we're not really -- our markets -- not really. There's some geographies that we're not competing in that have experienced some nice growth, some of the secondary cities and so on. But nothing that is -- we're trying to think of some of the details, there's nothing that's specific.

Maybe what's going on here is the 6% is since 2011. That's the base year for that proximal zone. I think now I understand where your question is coming from, the disconnect. They're different time periods.

Okay. All right, that's helpful.

The 6% is that chart that we kept updated and we used during the road show a year and half ago. And it is really the cumulative effect of all of these customer-centric initiatives that we put in place. We began rolling them out in April of 2011 with AMC Stubs. And that 6-point differential that we quote is really the cumulative effect on a per-screen box-office basis. And it does limit the geography rather tightly to 20 miles around each one of our screens.

I was trying to think about the total US, and there's really no discernible trend there. But when you think of the specific geographies, we have been very, very specific to our buildings and the buildings around them. We are not even going DMA-wide, we are not even going statewide -- we're going building by building to build that chart and it's a cumulative effect dating back five years.

Just to be clear, we talked about, in the quarter, the industry up 9.4%. We actually looked at our markets and think they were up about 10.8% and we were up 11.4%. So, our markets outperformed the industry, and we outperformed both of them, is how we view it.

Okay. All right, that's helpful. One other number question. On the operating expenses that were up 11.5%, in a flat box-office environment, what would be the growth trend in that line? How much of that is driven by the revenue growth and how much of it is baked in expense inflation?

2% to 3%. I think we've always thought that, in a flat environment on the product, we ought to experience inflationary cost increases. And that's an offset of you've got the ACA Act that's affecting your insurance costs, but you ought to be able to get efficiencies in maybe some of your other variable operating expenses. You're always trying to minimize it. But in a flat environment, couple of percent.

Okay. All right, I'll leave it there. Thank you very much.

James Marsh, Piper Jaffray.

Great, thanks very much. I was hoping you could break down the 10% growth that you guys saw in food and beverage per cap. It's a big number, but break it down between how dine-ins were doing and alcohol versus the Freestyle and marketplace. Any particular drivers of that 10% number? Or are they all contributing equally?

I'll try to give you a little more clarity. We're talking about the, I guess, that $0.15 -- that $0.15 to $0.16. Bear with me for just --.

(multiple speakers) I think it was a 10.2% increase.

I'm sorry?

I think it was a 10.2% increase in the per cap for food and beverage.

And I had responded earlier that the two big chunks of that are pricing is about $0.27 and the balance is the -- driven by initiatives, the $0.16, getting you to the $0.43 between change from the prior year. It is spread evenly. Gerry mentioned that the MacGuffins drives probably a little higher and the Freestyles probably overweight a little bit as you start breaking apart that $0.15. Those are the two that probably contribute a little more.

But it is spread across dine-in theaters, Freestyle, MacGuffins and some of our marketplace concepts. It's even but maybe a little heavier weighting to the two, MacGuffins and Freestyle.

Yes. And it's across the formats, James, what we saw in food and beverage spending per patron -- the old per head, as we used to call it -- it's sort of consistent. It's 9 points for the core theaters, it's 9 points for the DITs and it's 12 points for the recliners. Of course for the DITs, those 9 points are coming off of a base that is closer to $9. But the growth has been fairly consistent across all of the formats.

Okay. All right, great. Thank you very much.

You bet.

Jim Goss, Barrington Research.

Thanks. I was curious, with the discussion you had earlier about the film rental splits, whether the customer-service initiatives -- the reseatings and enhanced food and beverage -- gave you any greater leverage with the studios such that they might be sufficiently interested in having their product shown in those locations that, that might help you get a little more bargaining power with them on that figure?

Not really. I mean, with the studios it's an aggregate discussion. They leverage that the reseat initiatives delivered to us is attendance growth. The productivity of the VPF that a studio pays -- the truth is they are paying that virtual print fee, that's VPF -- they're paying the virtual print fee whether 2,000 people over the course of two weeks enjoy the movie on that screen, or whether 20,000 people do. Clearly, they rather it be 20,000 and clearly that's what we delivered to them. So greater efficiency in that front and that does help the negotiations.

The truth is, when we sit down with these guys, it's about the total package. It's about what we deliver in efficiencies on the virtual print fees, about what we deliver in efficiencies in terms of [pair] building. It's the ability to deliver the big number on the opening weekend, which as you know, drives so much of the value of that product, both for the theatrical life as well as for the ancillary windows.

The real leverage comes from the total ability of the Company to deliver on that potential gross and the efficiency with which we do it. The trailer showings, because of the number of people that we bring in, all of that factors in. There is no one element I would tell you that delivers any more leverage point than the other.

It's really the fact that they know that if they want their movie to open big, they are going to need our help. And we know that if we want to have a big weekend, we're going to need their help. So sober, clear-eyed people over a negotiating table, we will strike a deal that works for everybody on all the movies.

Okay. And I don't know if it's too soon to get any early read on Dolby Cinema at AMC Prime, but are there any situations where you have had both that and an IMAX in the same theater? And if it's a particularly hot movie, you might have it in both places at the same time.

Yes, it really is too early. We only have five of them up and running, five under construction. We're very encouraged by what we've seen. We have some thresholds that we set for ourselves and that we have set with Dolby, because this involves their participation. They are deploying some capital into some of the screens with us. And all of the hurdles that we have set for ourselves have been not only met but exceeded. So we're very, very encouraged.

But it's way too early to tell. Can't really get into it any of the specifics. I will tell you that part of what's muddying the waters is the success that some of the movies that we put in Dolby Cinema have had. When Jurassic World becomes the juggernaut that it becomes -- man, it worked on every screen that we put it up, okay. So was it the movie or was it the screen? You know what? It worked.

That's about all I'm -- so it's going to take us a little longer to sort through. We're highly encouraged. The customer feedback has been phenomenal, both on the technology as well as the seats that we're installing in this thing. So the people are really liking it.

But it's way too early to tell. The truth is, Jim, we think the future involves IMAX -- we got 150 of them out there, and always looking for an opportunity to add more. Even Dolby Cinema, when fully deployed, over the next 10 years we're expecting 100, so this is not an either/or to us, it's an and game. It's IMAX and Dolby Cinema, combined, that deliver, we think, the greatest potential -- the greatest value for our shareholders.

Absolutely. IMAX was up 45% for us year over year. And that was very important to our financial results. So we're excited about Dolby Cinema at AMC Prime. We're also excited about the IMAX relationship.

Okay, and one last thing, Gerry and Craig. With the Starplex acquisition, and maybe it's a model for some others, but you implied that there would be some things you could take advantage of with your customer-service initiatives. As you look at potential acquisitions, do you think you would rather have something that could use some extra attention so you can put your little magic with it? Or would you rather have a theater that would be in perfect running order?

Well, we've said all along, Jim, that, for us, acquisitions was a three-filter, or a three-test deal. One, of course, the financial filter that you would expect us to apply, accretive at what price, multiples, impact of the NCN chairs, et cetera, et cetera. That we've always had that filter is not going away. It's as important now as it has ever been.

The second filter, which comes into play more and more, is the DoJ. As you know, there has been the investigation that is ongoing and so on and so forth, all of which underlines the fact we've always known and we've always said, that any acquisition we need to be ever more thoughtful, particularly of our site about what kind of scrutiny will it take from the DoJ, how proximal are the theaters to our existing fleet, et cetera, et cetera.

And then the third piece, which perhaps is unique to us, but one where the Starplex -- this is what makes Starplex such in an attractive opportunity for us, is the fact that what we do, we believe can play well in their buildings. They are well run, it's a good circuit. They have already begun to do some things themselves already, so it's not as we're starting from zero. For example, we're going to add 80 more screens to the recliner, but they really have 90 screens that are already reclined. So we're not starting at zero there.

So for us, our analysis is really about, gee, putting the potential acquisition through those three filters. This is not an either/or and it's not a multiple-choice exam. You got to get through all three filters. And if you get through all three of them in good shape, as Starplex did, then you're going to find us being very acquisitive.

What you will not see us do is, oh, gee, let's engage in an acquisition because we have made some statement or we've made some promise that is predicated on screen count or building count or something like that. Our strategy is focused on customers and being customer-centric. And it's supported by the productivity of the fleet, the existing fleet and the fleet that we would add to, on the productivity of each visit. When we can add to that productivity by being customer-centric, we will add to the fleet. But we will not do so just because we're chasing some number. That's just not what we do.

All right. Gerry, good luck to you.

Thank you, sir.

Jason Bazinet, Citi.

Thanks so much. If I can go back to the interplay between a very strong box office and the ticket price increases and the food and beverage per patron. If we enter a period with a more benign box-office gross number, I think it's fair to say that ticket-price increases, or year-over-year increases, will be more modest because of less IMAX and the like. Is the same thing true on the food and beverage per patron? In other words, do you find that consumers are less apt to open up their wallet if they're not going to a movie that they're super excited about? Or is it all driven by the initiatives and it doesn't really matter?

Jason, I'll be honest with you. What you are describing has a name -- it's called 2014. It was not a great year for the box office. In fact, it was a down year. And what we saw in 2014 was that our initiatives carried the day, that the food-and-beverage spending grew dramatically compared to the box office that didn't.

So the scenario you're describing we just lived through it. And what we saw was that the consumer, when given that better experience of a reclined theater, it will go up. Now, we helped it by doing the Freestyles; we helped it by doing the MacGuffins; and they responded well.

So, we saw growth in food and beverage even though the box office itself was soft. So, one of the things that gives us such great firepower behind these initiatives is that, when the industry softens up, as it's bound to do any given year -- we don't think it's this year, we don't think it's 2016 either -- but when it softens up, these initiatives fill in the gap rather nicely. Now, Mr. Ramsey wants to add some soda to that.

Yes, if you went under the microscope you would probably find there's some variation in film genre on spend, family versus action. But I think that probably the more salient point is, going forward, we think we'll continue to have impact. What will continue to have impact on food and beverage per patron spend is the deployment. As we roll out more of our initiatives and cover a greater percentage of our fleet, we'll not only enjoy the benefits of what we've done already -- and the higher levels of spend -- we will take it even further, even to higher levels, as more theaters get deployed. So, not film-specific, I think more related to the pace at which we deploy.

Very good. Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you, Jason.

Chad Beynon, Macquarie.

Hi, thanks for taking my questions. I wanted to go back to some of the details on the Starplex acquisition. You guys keep mentioning that the acquisition is accretive from a cash flow-EBITDA earnings standpoint. Wondering if you can provide some more disclosure around the EBITDA. All we see is the price per screen.

And then if you cannot, help us understand how you're thinking about M&A in the space, and the returns that you're going to get on $172 million in M&A versus reseating. Just some overall color there. Thanks.

What I could say about the acquisition is we think that, after synergy, after all the different impacts, including the National CineMedia piece of this thing, this deal was done between a 5.5 and a 6 turn. It ultimately depends on how well the theaters perform when you get to that point. But that's how we think about it, from is it accretive? So I think that should answer the question. Absolutely, it's accretive.

The quality of the circuit, I think, has certainly played heavily in our thinking. And this circuit performs at an attendance-per-screen basis, at about a 25% premium to the industry average. And they've got a good mix of urban and smaller-market mid-tier markets. And so, if you take that into account, you would expect lower levels of productivity. Not really the case here.

So, highly attended theaters, which I think sets the stage for us to deploy the food and beverage, monetizing the attendance, providing returns above the accretion of the base deal. And the same for the reseats, which Gerry said they've already -- probably about halfway through their reseat program. So there's more opportunity to reseat.

And what is the return opportunity? No different than really what we've seen in our circuit. You may have some smaller markets in the Starplex organization. We actually have, ourselves, reseated some of the smaller markets that we acquired -- as an example, in the Kerasotes transaction -- so we know what that looks like.

Even in situations where you may not have the major market population, oftentimes these smaller markets don't cost quite as much to perform the work for a lot of different reasons. But we think the return opportunity is really no different in the Starplex circuit than it is in the experience we've had within our own circuit.

Absolutely.

Okay. Craig, that's super helpful. And, going forward, do you expect to continue to see some M&A opportunities in the next 18 to 36 months? Obviously, keeping the DoJ's concerns in mind, do you think there are still other circuits where you can implement your strategies and see similar type returns?

Absolutely. Those will be -- you never know when they're going to happen, when they're going to come up. You can try to position yourself, but you really never do know when someone's going to decide to put their circuit up for sale.

But we will be selective. And we will -- we're generating a lot of free cash flow and we'll want to put it to work. We think that consumers everywhere want the better experience. And so that leads us to believe that there are going to be opportunities to buy circuits and deploy what we do best, and that is these guest-centered, guest-centric initiatives that Gerry has introduced and got us well on the way to (multiple speakers).

Chad, there's a word that occurs that we haven't used when thinking about this, and that is discipline. And that discipline, you see it in our painting of the remodels. You see it in the announcements that we do for the acquisitions. You see it in so many of these things that we're working against.

And, whereas there is a temptation to grab a headline, and there is a temptation to race ahead in order to have something to talk about in an earnings call, the fact of the matter is that something that this organization does very well, is that it exercises that discipline, financial and operationally. And it brings that discipline to everything that it does.

And that's what perhaps sometimes makes AMC a little less flashy on a quarter-in, quarter-out, headline-grabbing basis. Yet, you know what? It allows us to provide, we think, more sustainable high-quality results. And that's part of what you may be seeing here with some of these M&As, is that we're not going to jump on each and every single one of them. We're going to jump on the ones that make sense to us.

Okay. Thanks, very helpful. And, Gerry, best of luck and I will be speaking with you on your conference calls at your next job.

I'm looking forward to that. Thank you, Chad.

Leo Kulp, RBC Capital Markets.

Hi, thanks for taking the question. With the 2016 slate starting to fill out a bit, how are you thinking directionally about the performance of the box office next year?

It's kind of early, and I'm the guy that, one call ago, went out and predicted $11.25 billion for the industry this year. So I'm perhaps the one that is most prone to make predictions about the future.

It seems too early about 2016 even for me. But I will tell you couple of things. So, on the one hand, I'm trying to be cautious and, on the other hand, here I go. I think 2016 is going to be, based on what we know, a fine year for the industry. Don't know that it will burst through, what I expect will be $11.2 billion, $11.25 billion in 2015, just don't know enough about that yet.

But here's what I can tell you. For AMC, 2015 is shaping up to be another record year. So 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 -- four record years in a row. Given the acquisition, which we expect will close very late in 2015, which will give us wind in our sails for all of 2016; given the pace of the recliner remodels, which we have escalated up by three -- two to three units a quarter; if the box office helps at all -- if it's stable, we're not even going to need a lot of help from the box office, even if it's just flat to prior -- 2016 will be another record year for AMC, even if the industry just holds its own.

So, can't give numbers because it's just a little too early, but I am very encouraged by what I have seen so far from the industry and extremely encouraged by what I know is coming from AMC. Between the initiatives and the acquisition and everything that we got cooking, all of those projects are already in the pipe. So these are not betting on the come, we know when these projects are going to hit.

So I see 2016 as -- at the moment -- as the fifth record-setting year in a row for this Company. So that's about all I can tell you about the year to come.

Got it. Thank you very much. And all the best, Gerry.

Thank you, Leo, appreciate it. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for spending the better part of your afternoon with us. It has been an honor and a privilege to lead this organization for the last 6.5 years. It has been a tremendous amount of fun to interact with all of you over the last 1.5 years. Thank you for all of your good wishes just this afternoon, and I know I will be seeing you down the road. Thank you again.

Thank you. This concludes today's teleconference. Thank you for your participation. You may disconnect your lines at this time.