Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Power, I largely agree... except re the lenders. Being as far in as they are, do they honestly have a commerclally palatable alternative? Neither a D4E swap nor a "shutting up shop" asset firesale would seem at all attractive... My best case possible guesstimate for Hylas 4 revenues would be 25% utilization at $1,000 per MHz per month by end 2019. That's still not to be sneezed at.

The starting gun hasn't exactly gone off. What's happened - and yes it's still a good thing - is that consent's been sought (and by the looks of things, gained) for the terms of existing/future debt to be less onerous. First and foremost, this IMO will allow AVN's auditors to consider AVN as a viable going concern and thus sign off on the latest FY and half year figures - which again IMO is largely why such consent was sought. (And no I am not surprised at all that the major bondholders like MAST consented... any alternative decision would not have been good for them at all). If the assumptions above are correct, what this gives AVN is more time. More time to see how much of HYLAS 4's capacity it can sell. Now I don't think ProfW's previously posted extrapolations from historic data are that close to reality... we all know that the price of data is dropping fast, so $1,600 per MHz per month will by H2 2018 be almost certainly well over the top. Similarly ProfW's extrapolated "instant" utilization rate of 35% is also IMO very top-endish... as AVN itself effectively states:- "Once launched, Avanti anticipates Hylas-4 utilization will grow to 25 to 35 percent by the end of fiscal year 2019." Having said that, I see the granted consent as allowing AVN to get its statutory figures out and yes, giving them an extension in their endless quest to get revenues more closely matching - and please God, exceeding - funds required to service existing debt. They undoubtedly will start generating incremental revenues from Hylas 4 to some level or another, so not a bad thing at all.

Erm.... For the sake of balance, there are a number of massively positive assumptions in ProfW's post. An equally massively negative take on the same metrics quoted would be "AVN demonstrably can't sell 65% of its existing capacity... ergo it needs more capacity and the requirement to finance the OpEx of such like it needs a hole in the head." IMO, both views are far too simplistic/black and white and the eventual truth will lie somewhere between those two wild (and staggeringly widely separated) extremes.

Agreed, Intra. That's exactly the way I read it. Seeking consent to get terms of existing or future debt less onerous. If so, this would then give AVN more time to attempt to get to a position where revenues would cover interest - which would be viewed as positive news. Also, as both I and Power commented previously, the mention of release dates for both FY and Half Year figures leads me to strongly suspect that there may have been an issue with company auditors being prepared to sign off these two sets of accounts and attest that AVN was a viable ongoing concern, without the company seeking (and apparently achieving) such consent. So, it looks like the lights can now be kept on a while longer - and that's (obviously) not a bad thing, hence the SP upward movement. That's my read, anyway.

Yes, despite the frenzied assurances of jam being just around the corner, the SP is (surprise surprise) a whole heap more Edgware than Knightsbridge... (OK S****horpe would have been more accurate, but you know...)

WatchLearn absolutely... a classic, but very short term, compared to some others, That's probably because there's clearly a few (and hopefully a growing number) who are well aware of what's gone on here and the oh so typical modus operandi. Time for the P&D ramptastic remnants to trot out their tired old "Troll! Shorter! Winnifroth minion!" routine. It's all they've got when faced with those holding opinions grounded in reality, rather than fanaticism or naivity.

It's hard to read much definitive into that RNS, but it's seemingly been received well, but I don't see it as a T/O prelude in the least. The potentially more interesting of the two points revolves of course around "a future tranche of an incremental facility". If AVN has secured additional loan funding on potentially more lenient terms, then that would certainly help keep the lights on longer - and who knows? Maybe even up until a point where revenues can service interest. Either way, that'll be seen as a positive. The timings re latest FY and half year results would seem largely irrelevant...unless there was an auditors' sign-off of accounts issue re AVN's viability as a going concern without extra funding or leniency on existing funding being provided (which it now seems like it might have been). Thing is, I don't believe that the major bond-holders like MAST who are the ones truly holding the purse strings even want a D4E swap. Given the size of their self-taken exposure, they are almost forced into consenting to greater leniency on either existing or new funding vehicles. Getting any sight of the specific consent solicitation (to be issued today) might make things clearer. AIMO.

I completely agree with Aimforprofit's assessment of this outfit. Astute management team, well-spread business, both in terms of suppliers. territories and more recently, technologies as well, proactively yet sensibly acquisitive... all ticks a number of boxes for me. This one's not for short-term or day traders. IMV it's a secure (well, as secure as can be on AIM) slow burn LTH hold. And jsmith, although it's honestly really not that important except from a minor PR win point of view, I would be very surprised if Andrew W and his team don't already have enough being finalised in the background to hit that 100k subscribers by year end. AIMO of course....

Seriously? You point at CTAG as your example and claim that anybody who counselled caution re that stock while the usual pump n dump suspects were ramping the living daylights out of it had some evil agenda??? Are you even aware of CTAG's position since end March? You want to rethink that utterly farcical statement? I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

GCC... "How obvious a turning point do people need to recognise a bargain?" Look at the SP for your answer. For many many months it's blindingly clear that the market as a whole utterly disagrees with your analysis and valuation. With respect, you come across all too often as petulant, forever whining that you're the only one in step and that it's the market that's got it all oh so badly wrong. I certainly don't see the slightest sign of a massive buy-in on AVN shares at current "incredibly cheap" levels. The reason for this lack of interest and plumbing of yearly lows? This ain't no bargain and demonstrably isn't considered as such by any investors or corporate entities who could make a difference to the SP. However, i completely acknowledge your right to keep on fanatically loving the emperor's new clothes...

Predictive text now offers misspellings? Who knew? Must be a helluva handset you've got there, looking at that post...

To be fair, an RNS-R (rather than an RNS) is never much more than a glorified press release/PR statement. Being an RNS-R, it doesn't have to go through Nomad due diligence/sign-off process ** and therefore will not contain any commercially significant info. ** (Of course, given that this is AIM, many may find that the concept of "Nomad due diligence/sign-off" brings them to hysterical yet ironic laughter...)

An informed post, WO. Yes, certainly the market leader in in-flight connectivity Global Eagle seems to have plumped for HTS Ku (which on the surface would seem to be counter-intuitive, given the greater data density available with Ka). Looking at SES, SES-14 (Q1 2018) carries 20 HTS Ku transponders which are entirely intended for the inflight market.Check the coverage footprint at https://www.ses.com/our-coverage/satellites/369 - note the blanket coverage of the US-Europe airline route. I have heard tell that SES-14's Ku capacity has indeed been presold entirely to IFS operators. I don't think AVN is targeting the IFS industry in any meaningful way at all - and as you point out, this is probably because their technology is not best fit for aeronautical purposes.

Not just ISat either. All the major operators and especially those with existing or imminent coverage over the US, Europe and the transatlantic corridor have been in contract negotiation talks with the likes of Global Eagle, Panasonic etc etc for many months. In-flight connectivity is seen by many as singly the most important golden goose/most lucrative emergent market for VSAT over the next several years. I'm aware of at least one operator that's dedicating/preselling all its available bandwidth from one particular new bird into this opportunity, rather than looking to fill volume but fragmented ground-based demand, simply because available margins are so much more attractive.

WO, posts get deleted (and frequently for ridiculous non-reasons), but I've never seen a post edited by BB Mods. Suggest you re-read and double check, because, re the two snippets I quoted from previous posts of yours, the original text in your original posts remains.

Once one's filtered out the yawn-inspiring abuse from WO's last couple of posts, I have no particular issue with what he says - I don't agree with it by any means, but it's a tenable position. For example (and with a minor piece of editing to lose the trite insults)... WO: "You have to consider AVN is in a state of flux, SP dropped considerably. The captain is an interim. H4 has been put back, and it has to reach orbit - the AMOS disaster last year has put off financial speculation on individual launches until the asset is in orbital position." WO: "There will be little movement until Launch, and yes the repayments are easily achievable on current and forecasted revenues until scheduled launch date." Nothing wrong with the above as opinions. Okay so my own take on AVN is a whole heap less rosy - but everyone's allowed an opinion, whether well-researched or not. Where I do take issue though is with this ****ging off of people who express less than positive opinions. Sure everyone's allowed an opinion - but I particularly understand negative opinions being expressed by those who bought in at a far higher level, based on company bluster and hype (which there's historically been plenty of). They've effectively bought the right to hold and state such views - so stop having a pop at them for doing so..

I refer the gentleman to my previous post re mythical troll accusations.

Yes good ole Clint has very recently joined SES... well, according to his LinkedIn profile, he has. I doubt very much he's holding down two jobs, especially as SES is a direct (and much bigger and uglier) competitor to AVN. Although maybe conspiracy theorists will come up with something - it's a given that all the larger and more stable satellite operators will be keeping a vulturish close eye on AVN's assets...

Oh I'll have a go at this. Let me just adopt zealot logic. Premise: "AVN is a slamdunk guaranteed 12+ bagger, subject to the Hylas 4 launch being successful. Any fool must be able to see that." 8p to £1... that's a multiple of over 12. Ergo: "Anyone daring to contradict the above must have a malevolent agenda. They must either be a fully salaried employee of the Evil Global Shorting Co-Operative, or they must be looking to drive the SP down to get an even more cost-effective entry point. Either way, they're evil scum! Drive them out! Ban them! Get their posts deleted!" QED, no? Well, no. Not if the original premise is fallacious. Let's first presume that the very vocal uberpositive fanatics are genuine holders who don't have their own malign ramptastic agendas along the lines of "let's see if we can generate a spike, sell into that to naive mug punters, rinse and repeat" - and that's not a small presumption in itself, because that's fairly typical AIM activity. Anyhow... These incessant accusations of "Boiler room troll! Paid deramper! Evil Shorter!" are always the last resort of those with blind faith as per above. The exact same accusations were thrown so readily about by the faithful when discussing Quindell... Globo... AFPO... numerous others. How else to explain the refusal of some to join the so blatantly clear one true belief? It simply CANNOT BE that there's a more than justifiable near-diametrically opposed position,,, ,,,can it?

Can't we all just get along? (No chance of that). I don't think that AVN is invariably fated to go under either - but based on no more than brutal fundamentals, I'm finding it hard to see how it can persist in its current form. MTB's debt vs revenue race analogy is both cogent and more than tenable as a position IMO. As to the endless and tiring accusations of "deramping", the irony is that it's those zealously continuing to thump the tub in uberpositive fashion that in my view at least have far less credibility right now. Sure, I get the whole "wish fulfilment" thing - but again to return to those nasty and bleak fundamentals, to do so right now would seem to be blatant ramping. I'm reminded of the recent deleted set of posts where one notable zealot assured everyone with cast iron certainty that most of Hylas 4's capacity was pre-sold. When challenged on this, it was claimed that the news was public domain and all over Google. This turned out not to be true - all that was eventually dug up was an 18 month old press release re a small $1 million deal with Bentley Walker, some woolly RNS-R concerning Millicom with no values mentioned and some recent statement saying that Hylas 4 revenues (NB no amounts mentioned) are expected to flow from the 2nd half of 2018... hardly cast-iron proof. Needless to say, this thread soon got deleted... can't imagine why. Cue the outrage...