Filing Flows

Filing Flows › Companies › First Real Estate Investment Trust of New Jersey › Analysis traps

First Real Estate Investment Trust of New Jersey (FREVS): analysis traps

Where its figures could mislead a reader, and what to check before taking them at face value · Data: Q3 FY26, to Jul 31, 2026, filed Sep 11, 2026; rules v1.1

First Real Estate Investment Trust of New Jersey (FREVS): 2 rules of 10 triggered on the filings to Jul 31, 2026: low net debt = no refinancing risk; A REIT's low net income = the dividend is unsafe; 3 with insufficient data; 4 not applicable. Each is a question to verify, with the normal explanation that would produce the same figures.

Check these first

Low net debt = no refinancing risk Triggered · severity high · confidence medium

$61M of debt comes due within a year against $16M of cash and investments and $5M of free cash flow over the last twelve months: $40M short, to be refinanced or raised. Net debt of $98M says nothing about when the debt falls due.

Innocent reading: A committed, undrawn credit facility covers the gap (not visible in the balance sheet).

A REIT's low net income = the dividend is unsafe Triggered · severity medium · confidence medium

Dividends of $7M exceeded operating cash flow of $6M in FY25 (115%): the low net income ($3M) is not the reason to worry, the cash is.

Innocent reading: Capital returned after a disposal, as a one-off.

Every rule

A01 FCF growth = the business improved Not applicable

a financial company: free cash flow after capex is not the measure of its business

A07 Stock compensation added back = no economic cost Insufficient data

fewer than two fiscal years of stock compensation and share counts on file

B02 Receivables growing = future cash is certain Not applicable

a financial company: receivables and DSO are not its working capital

B08 Adjusted profit = economic profit Insufficient data

no reconciliation table read from the releases yet and fewer than three quarters with both an adjusted and a GAAP EPS

C02 Low net debt = no refinancing risk Triggered severity high · confidence medium

$61M of debt comes due within a year against $16M of cash and investments and $5M of free cash flow over the last twelve months: $40M short, to be refinanced or raised. Net debt of $98M says nothing about when the debt falls due.

The figures and how they are read
Cash and investments$16M
Debt$114M
Net debt$98M
Due within a year$61M
Read fromthe debt maturity table
Free cash flow, twelve months$5M
Cash plus free cash flow$21M
Coverage of what is due0.3
Due in the second year$10M
Balance sheet date2026-07-31

due within a year from the maturity table (else the current portion of debt), against cash and investments plus free cash flow over the last twelve months (zero if negative); no credit lines assumed

Source: FY25 (debt maturities, cash and investments)

What would explain it innocently

What to look for in the filing

What would show the trap does not apply

Look again: next filing.

D03 EPS growth = profit growth Not triggered confidence high

EPS rose 2184% and net income rose 2194% in Q3 FY26; the share count rose 0.1%: EPS growth follows profit growth.

The figures and how they are read
QuarterQ3 FY26
Quarter beforeQ3 FY25
EPS, year before$0.12
EPS$2.69
Net income, year before$879K
Net income$20M
Diluted shares, year before7.5M shares
Diluted shares7.5M shares
EPS growth21.84
Net income growth21.94
Diluted shares: change+0.1%
eps from profit$2.58
eps from share count$0.00

EPS and net income against the same quarter a year earlier; the EPS bridge attributes the change to profit first, then to the share count (the order is fixed and disclosed)

Source: Q3 FY26 (net income, diluted shares, EPS) · Q3 FY25 (the same quarter a year earlier)

E02 Low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued Not applicable

a financial company: J06 reads its cycle instead

E07 A precise DCF value = the true value Insufficient data

no DCF in the valuation research for this company

J06 A bank's low P/E and high profit = safe Not applicable

not a bank

J08 A REIT's low net income = the dividend is unsafe Triggered severity medium · confidence medium

Dividends of $7M exceeded operating cash flow of $6M in FY25 (115%): the low net income ($3M) is not the reason to worry, the cash is.

The figures and how they are read
Fiscal yearFY25
Net income$3M
operating cash flow$6M
dividends paid$7M
capex$759K
payout of net income2.28
payout of ocf1.15
payout of ocf after capex1.31

a REIT's net income is after depreciation of buildings that usually hold their value, so FFO / AFFO is the payout measure; here operating cash flow and operating cash flow after capex stand in for it (capex includes acquisitions of property where the filing lumps them)

Source: FY25 (net income, operating cash flow, dividends and capex, fiscal year)

What would explain it innocently

What to look for in the filing

What would show the trap does not apply

Look again: next filing.

What the statuses mean

Triggered: the filings show the pattern; read the normal explanations and the missing evidence before concluding anything. To review: one quarter or a weak signal; a reader's judgement, not a pattern. Not triggered: the pattern is absent on these figures. Insufficient data: the filings read so far do not hold what the rule needs; this is not a clean bill. Not applicable: the rule is not meant for this kind of company (a bank's working capital, a loss-making quarter's EPS growth). Out of date: the latest filing is more than fifteen months old.

Severity is what the pattern could mean for cash, value or solvency; confidence is how reliable the inputs and the reading are. The two are kept apart.

Record a view

A reader's judgement, grounds, what would change it and the next review; kept in the browser (needs JavaScript).

Every rule and the companies it triggers on → First Real Estate Investment Trust of New Jersey: cash flow →

Each rule reads the company's own filings by a fixed formula and says what would explain the same figures innocently. A triggered rule is a question to verify, not a finding of manipulation, and not a view on the stock. Missing data is shown as missing, never as clear. Not investment advice.