Member Info for Beo1

Yes FTSE really doesn't like airlines, IAG on a PE of 5, unless I missing something that seems silly under valued

I guess the upside / downside risks of new bigger planes have been looked at.

In terms of the 321, only 1 more crew, so some extra cost there if you can't fill those extra seats, and I guess fuel cost as the TARE weight will be more. But the upside of the extra capacity vs the extra CPS if that capacity isn't filled seems weighted in the upside category for me

I dont see anything negative in it. But for step change in the ROCE / EBITDA % metrics, that seems a bit on the longer term than Medium term for me. EG when those 319 get off fleet, thats when the CPS improves materially and with that the EBITDA / ROCE. and thats not really happening until 2028, so perhaps the market is just impatient and wanted to see that sooner? Obviously the overall planes are going up before then but that doesn't improve the ROCE / EBITDA % metrics as much

No on here and scroll down to capital structure seminar and download from the link

https://corporate.easyjet.com/investors/financial-calendar/default.aspx

OK, the slow introduction of the new planes to replace the 319 and therefor greater capacity (plus cost efficiency) doesn't really ramp up until 2028, which is a shame and might be why the drop. I get we are getting some newer planes as growth before then, but that extra capacity doesn't drive as much CPS saving as replacing a 319.

Is it capital markets day today for EZJ? is that where those excerpts come from

Like i did the other day. Mystic Meg he is.

"my crystal ball is telling me the share price may go up, ........or it may go down"

I'm not saying there is no value in TA btw, just the non committal nature of it, of at least stumpy's interpretation of it.

Im not even arguing that you muppet

I'm saying the market doesn't go oh this share is worth 72p today. In values the company as a whole and the SP is derived from that valuation.

But yes in you simplistic primary school maths SP x Shares = MCAP. Never disputed that, what I have disputed is which part of that sum is the cause, rather than the effect. Do you understand that? Do i need to draw a picture for you to understand. Stop arguing about something that I have never argued about. You started this off by using the wrong terminology by saying the same stupid math comment. I was just correcting you that the MCAP is the starting point not the ending point. The SP is simply the tradable value the MM use to get to the MCAP, but they are valuing the MCAP first and foremost and the SP is then a product of that value.

I wasn't wrong, but you are too stuck up your one ar** to listen to anyone but your own voice.

I'm done trying to discuss with you. Said it before and I'll say it again, your a narcissist, who when questioned, doesn't actually respond to anything but keep coming our with your tripe.

OMG Give it a rest.

The SP is the market cap / shares in issue

See we can both regurgitate the same stuff we both have

I give up. I'm not disputing the MCAP is what the market thinks the company is worth. Show me anyway on this thread where I said otherwise.

Simply saying the SP is derived from the MCAP that the market places on the company.

Whereas LTI is saying the MCAP is is derived from the SP that the market places on the company

There is a subtle difference I am highlighting, if you cant understand that then I suggest you stay away from the thread

Yes I agree, I hope for more but based on published numbers.

Q3PY + 11% in revenue = £250m, (eg 8% increase in seats plus 3% on yield/holidays business, the latter was a prudent guess on my part

But Q1 and Q2 were both up 22% YoY so £250m is the minimum I'm expecting

Thats the number I'm hoping as a minimum as it would show the trend is heading to the £650m, which would put the PE at 7.3, or translates to 650p if we keep current PE of 10.5. I get that the 10.5 PE effectively has some assumption on that growth but you get the point!

Take NVIDIA. they want to split the stock to bring the SP down. which should in turn create more of a market place (which could drive SP changes, but thats a different story)

But the market will value NVIDIA at $Xb, if nothing else changes and they halve the share count. the MCAP doesn't halve, as the market will still value them at $Xb, thus the Market Makers would have to halve the SP to factor that.

Stop confusing correlation with causation!

I'm not confusing what MCAP is!

Any traders will use there methods to arrive at what they think is a fair value of the company. Be it EBITDA multiples, NPV on FCF, the NAV. All of those methods are used to come to what they think the company is worth. If the current MCAP is below that value materially that could tempt them to buy into the share, thus moving the share price up or down for the day. But its the overall value of a company that the stock market is valuing, the current SP and shares in issue are a proxy to arrive at that value. nothing more nothing less

Just don't really understand TA fully to see how this plays out. So your saying it could test those low's, but the TA can only be calculated off past events, and the future doesn't always play out that way. EG your saying in a few months, but we get a good read on inflation tomorrow, how does that impact? (seeing as the historical numbers that suggest those retests wont be at play) Then we have the Q3 update in July, which if the £650m profit is on track or better, would suggest an upwards move, again the historical numbers wouldn't even factor £650m profit as we haven't achieved that.

I'm saying the market determines the MCAP, the SP is then a function of that value.

As is evidenced when more shares are issued (but not for a cash consideration), the MCAP doesn't effectively change, its the SP that is adjusted to reflect the change in share count.

Im not then disputing the simple maths that the SP x share = MCAP. Similar to how no-one can dispute the maths that MCAP / Shares = Share price, or MCAP / Share price = shares. That is simple maths. What I'm disputing is that the SP is the starting point. whereas it might be the value everyone trades off, but it is simply the value the MM put on the share to arrive at the MCAP. Try not to confuse correlation with causation!

No

The SP is the MCAP / Share's in issue. as my split example proved and you agreed with

Good day, fine sir, our conversation is over, till next time 😘

Your the one that's clueless, highlighted by the fact, multiple people call you out on it.

The market determines the MCAP at a whole, the share price is just a function of that derived value, hence why the example i used highlights this. the MM would see the value as the same but see x2 shares in issue and drop the SP accordingly. Your trying to argue semantics but aren't clever enough to argue it well enough so resort to childish responses in calling me by a different moniker and/or retorting to insults

You seem to believe that the MCAP is a function of the share price

I'm saying the share price is a function of the MCAP

2 different things, but you have even conceded that on a split issue, the "market" would effectively half the share price to compensate, which proves my point not yours!