Member Info for Beo1

WTF are you on about? If the MM's had got it right wouldn't there be a delude of buys, which the MM would have to raise the SP to slow down. The fact nothing is trading, vindicates the SP does it not? EG its in equilibrium

Also, I think your being very optimistic about buybacks. EZJ have messaged a very risk averse approach to capital management, they are hardly paying out anything in Dividends yet, they have a bunch of planes on order, and yes they could just finance them all 100% on leases and not need capital, but I suspect recent needs for equity raises will make them take a balanced approached and use some equity in the plane purchases

Plus the fleet will grow, and if they 100% lease all the growth, the top line gearing will shoot up, which never looks good for investors.

Quick Maths

232 flights x 180 seats on average (I don't know the planes effected) = 41,671 less seats flown x £81.61 per seat = £3.4m revenue, x £75.82 all in cost per seat (worst case - they will still incur some costs here even if not running the flights) = £3.1m of less cost, So £240k of margin lost. Doesn't seem that much in the grand scheme of things.

This is only the lost operational profit here, assuming they don't redeploy elsewhere & no compensation!

It's not a loss, the row says loss because the 9m is a loss. The Q3 group operating profit was £103m vs adj 2023 of £52.5m

The ytd loss has reduced at operating profit level to -£227m from -£505m.

Not invested here either, sizeable in EZJ, so take a keen interest in the "market" dynamics.

I wish you would jog on. Your negative on numerous shares, you have shown zero patience you should consider if this shares business is really for you

She's made some big decisions, (some could argue wrong but I think not) exiting markets where they can't see a return above the cost of capital in the medium term due to challenging macro conditions. Those decisions will take time to see if they were correct, eg the improvement in FCF. If they are below cost of capital that essentially means it was a drag on FCF (although post dividends FCF)

Fleccy asked me what I thought of vodafone having the right to buyback the shares from newly issue hybrid bonds, so I told him why I think its good, so it was an answer to a specific question. If you don't get it not fleccy then you can just ignore

Ok LSE doesnt like the less than and greater than signs.

Considering the cost of capital is made up of Equity (Normally +10% "cost") and debt (Normally 6% cost) I would always advocate keeping the equity proportion as low as possible.

Especially when the earnings are consistent (EG I used to work in a truck rental company, where utilisations over 85% were profitable, less 85% utilisation not, so with such risk to earnings, Equity would be a higher %. Notwithstanding credit ratings wanting a reasonable gearing, meaning you cant fund to 100% debt ETC. So any instrument that effectively makes it function purely as debt is good in my opinion. EG the buybacks would effectively be similar to paying back a term loan.

Considering the cost of capital is made up of Equity (Normally +10% "cost") and debt (Normally 85% were profitable,

OMG its proper tripping out an wont let me post the full text

Considering the cost of capital is made up of Equity (Normally +10% "cost") and debt (Normally 85% were profitable,

Considering the cost of capital is made up of Equity (Normally +10% "cost") and debt (Normally 85% were profitable,

Considering the cost of capital is made up of Equity (Normally +10% "cost") and debt (Normally 85% were profitable,

Book cost is a sunk cost and shouldn't really make it into an investment decision. Were the Assets below the cost of capital? Yes, then they are destroying shareholder wealth, so divest and either use those proceeds to reduce the Costly Equity proportion and/or invest in areas of the business where returns > cost of capital

Their Not? They are being awarded shares under a performance related options but having to sell a bunch of them to pay the tax that has crystalised upon vesting of the shares

No, your average cost is £1, but you have realised a gain on 6000 shares of £1 each.

He's a novel idea, instead of masking your cost price by double counting profits. How about you take the sum of purchase £ / sum of your shares. Then tell us what your average cost is. Anything else is just creative accounting as your then not telling everyone all the realised losses you've made to do these trims.

Honestly, how can you buy shares and have a negative average cost. Do you not read that and think how silly your cost accounting is? You can't claim a average cost that is lower than any of your actual purchase prices. Anything else is just bad accounting

IAG posted a good set of results. Reinstated the dividend too, only blot is the penalty for cancelling the purchase. Let's see if we can get some relief tomorrow off the back of them. God knows we feel the pain when others have been bad.