Member Info for big-blue

Yes, sundenza, you are getting quite desperate now as the sand seeps through your fingers. I haven't given any prediction on what the SP is or will be and I think only one person is making a future prediction being lower, in the future. SO what are you talking about? Even you know what is on the cards and what is coming next, rather like experts in the city from mid September onwards. And one more indication is the complete silence from the company. In all my years following stocks, the quieter the company the worse the news ultimately turns out to be.

The effect of no industry support weighing on the sp I think, no market reaction to the budget. This will now be factored into the financial review and the cost impact on the business. Avoiding some sort of dilution looks almost impossible now. More short positions opening, the bet on what is coming next is looking clearer.

The hardest hit industries to get 50% business rate cut. But not the airline sector that was hit hardest. Instead APD increased. What's the 360 take on that?

300p no idea under the current circumstances, if ever. I'm fascinated to know when I am supposed to have made such a prediction. I'm beginning to think this is made up. It doesn't bother me in any your repeated posts, but you may want to consider what other people think of you.

The answer as to why we post is because it is a compulsion to answer repetitive misleading postsand lies aimed at duping people. You keep posting crap, we keep answering it. Simples.

and now the costs Hexham. Nice list of income, but now the expenditure. What were the outgoings over the time period of the income you say [I can't be arrsed to check whether your selection is appropriate]. And remember, upto 15th Feb in Q1 quarantine was not required so travel was much higher, if my memory is wrong on that I am sure somebody will say so, but the point was I remember travel was much easier for Q1 than for Q2/Q3.

You are the one insisting that the net figures be used. Do you work for the BBC? They insisted the number on the official leave campaign bus should bein net money not gross sent to EU every week, which would have been a unique way of using OBR numbers as they are always discussed in gross.

Proof Hexam, where is this 140mil income coming from? Sundenzas 350,000 pax paying an average £400 per seat? That is one hell of a call and you really need to give some evidence. You 50mil is YOUR estimation and has absolutely no qualification. And whilst sundenza may have thought he was helping you out, he has shown just how absurd your 50mil cash burn claim is.

350,000 passengers. Average £400 per passenger. Every week. SInce what, May? Are perhaps referring to another planet in a galaxy far, far away perchance?

Well, ignore the fact it is in terms of Euros for a European company, 350,000 passengers PER WEEK SINCE MAY?????????
And you have then all paying on average £400 (454E) per flight. Virtually no long haul, you expect 350,000 passengers to be paying on average 454 per seat on intra EU flights? Every week. In a market competing with Ryanair, Easy J, Whizz air and then the rest of the carriers??? As you read this to yourself, can you see what utter nonsense your figures are??? 350,000 passengers paying well above business fare prices. Per week. As I said, if IAG was taking in that sort of revenue during the travel lockdown then there would be no issues at all with the sp and it would would multiples what it is now.

Speaking of which, a quick check of the sp and there is virtually no reaction to the budget speech. No specific support for the airline sector. Probability of a fund raise resulting in dilution goes up to 99% now.

And for this 300p by year end. I'm sure with what was known at that time of estimation at what must have been very early in the year that would have seemed reasonable. It is such a bottom scraper to take start of year predictions and repeat them as still live at the end of the year. A great deal of negatives have impacted the industry over the year so you are only going to make a fool of yourself by repeating that 300p, if I did say that - I'd love to see the quote because I would most likely have put caveats around it and other ifs and buts to qualify it.

"Back to your £140m a week."

?

What are you talking about? What 140m a week?

However you want to call it in terms of net, where is the 150mil a week being generated? You are trying to claim that IAG has only been losing 50mil a week in the operating environment it has had for the last 6 months or so? So the huge drop EU operation and almost no long haul only creates a loss of 50mil. Seriously? A drop in capacity of the order of, what, 70% for EU and 90% long haul and only a net loss of 50mil?

Again, if that was the case, there would be no talk of refinancing by the city or the company and the sp would be at least double. At the very least!

OK sundenza, I can confirm your calculator can do simple arithmetic. Do those numbers have any particular relevance to anything? Is this your salary, salary man? lol

Impact of COVID-19
1.12 APD revenues have significantly declined following the reduction in
passengers caused by COVID-19, with receipts between April 2020 to
September 2020 down 86.9% compared to the same period in 2019.10
1.13 The government recognises the importance of the aviation sector, which
contributed at least £22 billion to the UK economy, along with over 230,000
jobs prior to COVID-19, and has provided unprecedented support, including
schemes to raise capital, flexibilities with tax bills and the extended furlough
scheme.11 The aerospace sector and its aviation customers are being
supported with almost £11 billion made available through loan guarantees,
support for exporters, the Bank of England’s Covid Corporate Financing
Facility and grants for research and development. This includes £8bn of UK
Export Finance guarantees.12 The sector has also been able to benefit from
the bespoke support provided by the Airport and Ground Operations
Support Scheme, which was renewed at the Budget for a further six months
from the start of 2021-22. This will provide support for eligible businesses in
England up to the equivalent of half of their business rates liabilities during
2021-22, subject to certain conditions and a cap per claimant of £4
million.13
1.14 The government’s objective is to see a safe and sustainable return to
international travel and is leading a successor to the Global Travel Taskforce,
working with industry to develop a framework that can facilitate greater
travel when the time is right, whilst managing the risk from imported cases
and variants.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/971943/Aviation_Tax_Reform_Consultation.pdf

Again, you are confusing your definitions. Cash burn is defined as the rate of spending. You want to change the definition to offset income. That is a different measure, it is not cash burn. The cash burn rate from the end of July is 190mil a week and I am not aware of an update. If you want to express the finances instead as a net cash figure, then you will need to demonstrate where IAG is getting a whopping great big 140mil a week from? Again, If IAG were taking in that level of cash, the sp would be very much higher than it is at the moment. Given the how much the EU market has been restricted with the sabotaging, and travel lists, and the virtually non-existent long haul, where exactly has IAG been getting the cash income from? If the net spending was only 50mil a week, it would be wall to wall across the media and oft repeated here!!!!

.... and this should be a worry for many people. This government is very susceptible to influence by the media. It is like the Blair years where virtually all policy and presentation was designed to appease the gods of TV. Face masks are no longer required, indeed there has been a quite removal of them whilst not having to face the awkward questions about how useless they have been and how much of the spread was caused by them. Just recently there was a big push by the mask lobby to try and use minor changes in spread numbers to get the comfort blanket legalised again. Pressure through news media on ministers to be 'seen' to be supporting mask wearing and having to account if they don't. So look a long the front bench for the budget speech. Masks on all of them. To prevent the spread of covid? No. To appease the gods of media? Yes. The current batch of politicians are more afraid of being held to account by the media than the voters. And that is very important because the other major area of manipulation is over climate change. And here again, the government is being completely manipulated by media and activist groups. There are very significant and deeply damaging affects of many of the climate change policies, not least the madness of banning fossil fuel cars in just a few short years time. A change in society so huge one would expect significant checks, balances debates and research on the huge socioeconomic impact of such a massive change over such a short space of time. But there is nothing. Just highly susceptible ministers terrified of the BBC. Something has to change fast.

I stand corrected, the 175mil per week cash burn was updated in Jul. To 190mil.
"The company is burning through €190m in cash a week"
https://www.ft.com/content/6108449f-7392-47e7-b4a5-12ebacd03fce
JULY 30 2021

Of course, cash burn doesn't take into account revenue, but the overall point is that the opening up of air travel has been delayed, sabotaged and subject to inconsistent and political interference. You wish us to believe that IAG has been taking in 140mil a week since, what May, June? I would suggest if that were the case, the sp would be at least double it's current value.

So my latest cash burn figure is from 30/7/21 at 190mil (Euros). Has anybody got a more recent one?

You quote account numbers for the first half of 2021. But isn't that where my references come from? I did a superficial search for round numbers to do a very ballpark estimate and those numbers are quite prominent. The source is Reuters, if the 175mil is incorrect, it would have been updated and the only accessible reference would have been the amended article. If you have a reference of a similar reputation (not just somebody's blog or a low level would be journalist) then please post.

You have reference 'net cash flow' but then describe it as 'cash burn' despite my posting descriptions that the two are not the same, as I believe you originally pointed out. You can not derive from the numbers you reference a cash burn, i.e. the rate the company is burning through it's cash reserve. You are quoting cash flow to pay for operational activities which is itself only one part of the outgoings picture, you are not quoting how much of the cash is being used. Your 50mil figure is therefore not valid in this context.

Good! I'm glad you have me filtered. You keep that head buried nice and deep in the sand pit. You deserve all that is coming to you with that atitude!

Cash Operating Cost refers to a cash flow statement which effectively follows all cash types of business expenditures. ... Such expenses are derived from the firm's information on financial accounting. It does not matter if the expense items are variable or fixed.
https://www.financial-dictionary

Net Burn, often referred to as Burn Rate, is the amount a company is losing per month as they burn through their cash reserves. ... A company that is profitable and generating cash has a "negative Net Burn". A company's Gross Burn is the total cash spent on operations.
https://www.klipfolio.com/metrics/difference/gross-burn-vs-net-burn

IAG, which also owns Aer Lingus, Iberia and Vueling, has a weekly cash burn rate of 175 million euros while most of its fleet is grounded due to restrictions, meaning its focus over the past year has been on raising funds.
May 11, 2021
3:31 PM BST
Last Updated 6 months ago
https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/british-airways-owner-iag-boosts-liquidity-with-825-mln-euro-convertible-bond-2021-05-11/

825mil bond in May, say 4 months eq cash burn, so 16 weeks is 2800mil. Even if you add in revenue since July EU flights opening up, say reduce the 175mil per week to 2 months only, that is still 1400mil. The point being the burn rate, the amount going out even under the most optimistic scenario has burned through the bond issue a while ago. And the numbers for the bond issue were assuming a return to full travel by July. For IAG's main revenue market, the return is still a couple of weeks away and a lot of those seats will be vouchers carried over from previous calculations.

There is a reason why 4 brokers made the extraordinary public statements that the company needs a cash call of the form of an RI. Precisely how the finances are to be repaired is the next big question. Red flag for me.

The burn is certainly not 50mil per week, that would mean IAG are bringing in 125mil a week to break even without their main market and with flight numbers only improving markedly over the last month or so with changes o the traffic light system. The burn rate is most likely over the 150mil mark on average since May and they will have been drawing on credit for the last month (I suspect). The bond money probably ran out in mid September causing the broker comments.

If anybody has more recent verifiable numbers then please post, I haven't time to do deep searches or whatever today.

Hexam, I specifically said 'net positive income'. This does not equate to a positive cash flow. Q1/2 you say has a 'cash flow' of 3bn out of an unspecified revenue. How much of that cash flow was derived from sales, and how much was derived from the credit drawdown? Corporations are very adept at smoke and mirrors with the numbers. If BA sells a seat for £1000 and the cash is on the books the next day that is cash flow into the business. But if overheads for that day are £1001, that is a net negative income. The company then draws £1 credit from the credit card to cover the overhead. That is a total cash flow of £1001, but the income for the business is zero.

The numbers form the likes of IAG will need very careful scrutiny.

But Bull, that is also like saying sales equates to net positive income. That is not necessarily the case. That is why the market and investors can only go by the last set of published data. It is a fools investment to make the kind of presumptions on here that because there are more flights, there must be more net money in the bank. As one person posted, we don't know how many bums on seat are carry over vouchers from cancelled pandemic flights. A lot of those flights might be heavily loss making at this point in time. Of course the art of speculation comes down to the sophistication of analysing 360 degrees of world events. But it isn't as simple as portrayed in films like Trading Places. It requires a significant suppression of ones own bias.

My inner bias with IAG is being risk averse and therefore being very cautious and sensitive to broker comments, especially when there is more reference to dilution latter on. I also don't like the silence from IAG. There are overtones of bad events from the past with big top heavy debt laden corporations that have lost their way in their market. IAG have had there's pulled away under their feet for a very long time.

The 360 says look out for state help, even form a Tory government. Most other airlines, even with the IAG group, are out cap in hand. But the 360 also tells me BA might be too proud and snobbish to so such a thing. Perhaps there will be some help targeted at airlines in the budget. The 360 says there should be. But the 360 also tells me that this government is completely consumed with all the 'green crap' and is highly susceptible to image with the environmentalists. [I note the Telegraph has been very brave and put up news stories showing some truths about the extent of support for all this climate change rubbish. I know I am not alone in my opinions of it, for a brief moment we are getting a peek at what other people also so think. And considering at least 15 years of intense one-sided heavy handed propaganda right across media, the result is a majority of people want to vote on the main climate change policy to reject it - very revealing!]