Member Info for TheTrotsky

I have to say that I take these types of analysis with a pinch of salt. I wouldn't wholeheartedly disagree with Wizard's current valuation but you don't become a "cash cow" without first investing money. FTC is just at the start of the cycle. I also wish people would stop assuming that the customer mix in FY26 is going to be much the same as FY25; it shows that they haven't actually bothered to read any of the RNS released by FTC (never a good start for someone who wants to share their "extensive" knowledge with us). FY25 was skewed by a very large one-off order from SPCX that accounted for (I believe, but haven't had time to double check) c40% of FY25 revenues. The slight decline in year-on-year revenues in FY26 was due to FTC not being able to fully replace all of those one-off revenues in one financial year but it has done a passable job and I'd expect SPCX to now account for 60% - 70% of FY26 revenues; still overweight but moving in the right direction.

Finally, I think it's worth pointing out that FTC's own internal forecasts/expectations clearly don't align with brokers' current forecasts. You don't expand your production capacity years in advance unless you expect orders to materialise in the near future. Obviously nobody, including FTC, is going to recognise those potential orders before they've been signed but I'd imagine that FTC has enough irons in the fire to believe that there's a better than 50% chance that a lot of those potential orders will materialise to warrant investing in new, expanded production facilities now rather than waiting a few years.

Not too worried for the time being.

Despite announcing the dividend in June the last 3 years, it was still paid in mid-August. In FY22 the dividend was declared with the final results.

I think you are reading too much into the timing of the announcement.

You do realise that the dividend is being cut?

The prospective dividend for FY27 is 4.5p - 5.1p, dependent on the portfolio performance.

The dividend for FY26 was 8.43p, by comparison.

Are you suggesting that Musk is the father of AI, EVs, social media and/or space rockets?

That's the 4th day in a row that FTC has ended in the red, which is unusual in my experience (large price falls have normally tended to last 2-3 days before the share price started to rebound). I'm beginning to think that, in the absence of any significant news, we could see the share price re-tracing to c150p (where it was at around Xmas). I'm looking to get back in and earlier in the week I was thinking I was being optimistic in thinking that the share price might fall as low as 270p! I think we might now be seeing FOMO in reverse where earlier investors start thinking that a bird in the hand might be better than two in the bush!

Shooting blanks again. Yet again LSE's trade data feed has stopped working properly! Trades are being reported 15 minutes late. L2 seems to have the correct order data but, without the trade data, it's not much help. Can't believe that I actually pay for this crap service!

Now my neck is on the line ;-)

Hopefully only a temporary set back for IES.

Good luck.

I'm not sure that the acquisition of T-Mobile would necessarily create a significant amount of additional orders for FTC than might otherwise be expected. It would give SPCX access to T-Mobile's masts and the possible opportunity to retro-fit satellite base stations on those masts but it would forego the need for base stations that would otherwise have been installed elsewhere.

I wouldn't rely on L2 to give you the whole picture (L2 doesn't give you insight into delayed trades or behind the scenes buying/selling). Buying has, for the most part, been weak (most of the buys have been sub 1,000 shares).

Maybe, but I'm not paying Google for the benefit of getting trade data 30-35 minutes late!

It doesn't help that we haven't been getting live trades from LSE since c3pm!

It's par for the course plus the current economic backdrop (the conflict in the Middle East and the inevitable supply chain disruption) means that the prices of its raw materials are likely to rise, at least in the short/medium-term, and some of those extra costs are likely to have to be absorbed by ZTF.

ZTF has had a good record in the past of being able to pass on extra costs to customers but there will be inevitable contract lag and it still remains to be seen whether the supply chain disruption will lead to just short-term price rises.

I suggest you actually read the latest RNS! That's exactly what they are doing but it's not going to happen overnight. They are believed to have picked up a contract with Blue Origin but Blue Origin is currently beset with launch problems, remains reliant on SPCX for satellite launches and is significantly behind on its satellite launch schedule. Given time, Blue Origin should be able to fix this and satellite launches, and potential revenue for FTC, should start to rise rapidly. Meanwhile, SPCX is having its own launch issues and therefore still remains reliant on its smaller payload Falcon IV rockets.

That's a totally superficial analysis. They've met or otherwise exceeded consensus forecasts for FY26 and already look well set to exceed consensus forecasts for FY27. The decline in revenues year on year had been well flagged in advance. The prior year figures were skewed by a very large, one-off retro-fit contract for SPCX that wasn't to be repeated. Recurring contract income has risen and continues to rise.

The problem is that the share price has got ahead of the curve because people liked to think that there was going to be exponential growth. FTC has never said that. An adjustment was due.

Diversification, broadening the customer base and reducing the percentage of income generated by SPCX sales, should, in this context, be seen as a positive, rather than a negative. If FTC remained more or less wholly reliant on SPCX sales it would not only leave it vulnerable should SPCX decide to take its business elsewhere (always a potential commercial risk) but also leave it increasingly open to downward pricing pressure which would more likely than not lead to FTC eventually being bled dry. It's always a balancing act.

Where exactly did they say they would be doing less with SPCX?

Diversification does not necessarily mean that the value of orders from SPCX will be less. They can increase sales to other customers and still increase sales to SPCX. The percentage of sales to SPCX may decline but that is only a reflection of the fact that many of these other customers are entirely new to FTC and are only just beginning to ramp up their orders. E.g. there is a presumption that if Blue Origin is now a customer its orders could become sizeable over time (maybe not on the same par with SPXC but nevertheless large).

My read is that the C shares, premised on a rising market, might not be as clever as at first seemed.

The C shareholders risk subscribing for new issues at the top of the current market. It wouldn't take much of a fall in the value of the underlying investments for the C shares to be underwater. The C shares have insulated the ordinary shareholders from the worst affects of a (hopefully) short term softening in asset valuations.

One month into the new financial year, and with an order book that already covers 90% of FY27 consensus revenues, I wouldn't be too surprised if FTC was to announce earnings upgrades as FY27 progresses but, even so, I still think the share price has got ahead of the curve. I'm currently out but looking to get back in on any share price retrace below 275p in the near term (don't forget that share price had only just breached 200p back in early April and not a lot has really fundamentally changed since then).

I think he may be reading the results columns the wrong way round. Both cash and EBITDA are rising, not falling.

I think you're misreading the RNS. The recurring income from SPCX is continuing to rise in absolute terms but is falling as a percentage of total income because of new contract wins from other customers. That's a good thing.