Airea Share Chat (AIEA)

Find Your Broker

Share Name	Share Symbol	Market	Type	Share ISIN	Share Description
Airea	LSE:AIEA	London	Ordinary Share	GB0008123027	ORD 25P

	Price Change	% Change	Share Price	Bid Price	Offer Price	High Price	Low Price	Open Price	Shares Traded	Last Trade
	+7.50p	+15.00%	57.50p	56.00p	59.00p	58.00p	47.50p	50.00p	300,138	15:51:27

Industry Sector	Turnover (m)	Profit (m)	EPS - Basic	PE Ratio	Market Cap (m)
Household Goods & Home Construction	36.7	-1.5	-3.3	-	24.87

Airea Share Discussion Threads

Showing 476 to 500 of 500 messages

Chat Pages: 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 Older

Date	Subject	Author	Discuss
12/12/2018 16:17	Win win situation for him. Does he also post when he sells?	busterdog2	Read Full Thread Reply
12/12/2018 16:01	Mesquida he is Glasshalffull, a much respected investor. He has over 3000 followers on twitter and many dive in once he posts a new buy as he did today.	wanttowin	Read Full Thread Reply
12/12/2018 15:53	Donut, who is GHF ?	mesquida	Read Full Thread Reply
12/12/2018 14:50	I think GHF has taken an initial position?	death by donut	Read Full Thread Reply
12/12/2018 14:42	Must have been tipped somewhere	smallcapinvestor1	Read Full Thread Reply
12/12/2018 14:30	I dont know, i do know i added more at 48p	arregius	Read Full Thread Reply
12/12/2018 14:05	Brit politics?	death by donut	Read Full Thread Reply
12/12/2018 12:45	Bored holders selling?	rjd123	Read Full Thread Reply
16/11/2018 22:16	I think these boys need to up their cash payment contributions to the pension pot	dan_the_epic	Read Full Thread Reply
16/11/2018 10:25	I'm not sure i'd call it a growth stock.	arthur_lame_stocks	Read Full Thread Reply
16/11/2018 09:58	I’d better put my hand up...I’d been discussing Aeria on twitter with a few investors who subsequently bought ..it really doesn’t take much to move this stock. It’s one of the least understood & therefore cheapest growth stocks with a generous dividend policy ...if anyone can find anything cheaper/better I would be astounded So no takeover rumours...just outstanding value	rhomboid	Read Full Thread Reply
16/11/2018 09:51	Agree that it is undervalued, but what exactly prompted a number of people to buy earlier this week. After all, it had been undervalued the week before and nobody was buying then! So what prompted the sudden interest. I am not aware of the stock being tipped anywhere. Makes you wonder !	mesquida	Read Full Thread Reply
16/11/2018 09:06	Might be a bid. But not necessarily. In my view Airea is still undervalued. It's a tiny and extremely illiquid share. Far too small for most insititutions to deal with. And there is little or no research available. Weakness in the share price after the results was likely due to small amounts of selling and not much buying. The results posted 3p for the first half. In the absence of research, no market expectations or knowledge of management expectations it's reasonable to assume 6p for the full year? In which case it was undervalued before and could be seen to be fair value at 60p But that ignores the growth in the first half, the new product launches, strongly rising international sales and continued cash generation. So perhaps 7p is more likely for full year? If so it's still way undervalued and any buying in quantity will pump up the share price. Just my view cheers	illiswilgig	Read Full Thread Reply
14/11/2018 22:21	Under the rules, Halstead could bid again on the proviso that Airea recommend the terms. If so, might the trading background have become bearish ?	coolen	Read Full Thread Reply
14/11/2018 16:22	Definitely something stirring here ? No company news timetabled for November, so what on earth could it be ?	mesquida	Read Full Thread Reply
12/11/2018 13:05	Interesting move today, is another bid coming ?	mesquida	Read Full Thread Reply
08/11/2018 16:01	nice tick up today - MM not keen to part with shares - tried to add	gucci	Read Full Thread Reply
13/9/2018 18:06	Appreciate the discussion :0). Thanks for taking the time	pireric	Read Full Thread Reply
13/9/2018 15:29	BrileyLoucan - Yes you are right. My last post crossed with yours. But even taking the figures at 65 there is still quite a gap with the pension assumptions which the recently slowing rate of rising life expectancy won't fill in the next 10 years - resulting in considerable reduction in payments required from the pension fund and/or considerable surplus assets arising in a few years time? cheers	illiswilgig	Read Full Thread Reply
13/9/2018 15:24	OK - perhaps 'wildly' was me getting carried away. Or maybe not. And as I said I am not an actuary so its just an opinion. No - I think that Airea is different for three main reasons. The fund is small, has been closed for almost 15 years and the average length of remaining payments is only around 10 years. The company was only located in Yorkshire *The primary occupation is mill worker. For other funds I think it would depend upon how far into the future the payments extend, as until recently life expectancy would have been forecast to continue rising at quite a rate. Then there is location and occupation. Different for national employers from small regional employers and for service and industrial work. Having looked a little more closely at the ONS figures I see that they give a life expectancy for 65 year olds of 83.5 (male) and 85.9 (female) which is a lot closer to the pension assumptions of 87 (male) and 89 (female) - BUT is still out by 3 - 4 years which to my mind gives quite a lot of scope for surplus assets. Applying the difference in mortality to the expected average remaining lifetime of the fund means that payments will be down around 40% in 7 years rather than 10 years (from memory - I don't have the report up in front of me at the moment). The average UK statistics for life expectancy vary significantly for location and occupation. There is a north-south difference which may reflect the different occupations. A small industrial company based in the north of England can't really expect to achieve average life expectancy based upon the industrial working (and living) conditions in the latter part of the last century? I'd put a finger in the air and say - deduct another couple of years for mill-workers in Ossett? All of which would put the pension benefit payments poised to fall significantly in the next few years? All of which means, going back to the original point, that Maynard Paton's simple assumption of constant earnings yield is not appropriate for a fund which expects rapidly falling benefit payments? cheers	illiswilgig	Read Full Thread Reply
13/9/2018 15:04	More relevant is life expectancy at age 65: In England, life expectancy for men aged 65 years in 2012 to 2014 was 18.8 years, while women at this age could expect to live for an additional 21.2 years. This means that a 65-year-old man could expect to live to almost 84 years, while a woman of the same age could expect to reach her 86th birthday.	brileyloucan	Read Full Thread Reply
13/9/2018 14:03	Thanks - just based on the mortality assumptions, does that mean that all pension deficits are wildly conservative? If I look at Alumasc and Norcros's for example, they use similarly high mortality ages	pireric	Read Full Thread Reply
13/9/2018 13:00	pireric - thanks for the link to the paton blog and article. Very useful. In response to your question Maynard Paton has performed a quick and dirty estimate of the income yield on the pension fund based upon last years benefits paid. This is simplistic and would be ok if the pension fund commitments extended well into the future without much change to the annual payments. But this is the old Sirdar fund which closed to future accruals in 2005 and it seems that the benefits were already being reduced well before then. So its a pension fund in run-down and Maynard's approximation will become less useful the closer to end of life the fund becomes (ie death of the last pensioner). The figures in the annual report are quite detailed. So here are a few points: The pension fund split is approximately 70% pensions in payment to 30% deferred (not yet payable). So most pensioners are already over 65, and some will be well over 65. The average end of life for the fund is projected to be 13years - but thats based upon an average of 20years for the 30% not yet in payment and 11 years for the 75% already in payment. So it's reasonable to assume that the benefit payments will start to fall rapidly in the next few years. This is aided by the mortality assumptions. The fund assumes 87years (male) and 89years (female) for the deferred pensions and not much less for those already in payment. BUT the current ONS figures for those born today are only 79(male) and 82(female) - the demographic adjustment for Yorkshire mill workers won't help much either. Now I'm not an actuary - but based upon the age profile of the fund and the wildly optimistic mortality assuptions I can see that the benefits being paid will fall rapidly in the next few years and the fund is more than likely to end up with a large surplus based upon current performance? cheers	illiswilgig	Read Full Thread Reply
13/9/2018 10:08	Eric I’ve tweeted a DM reply but it’s fair to say mgt have been innovative 🙂	rhomboid	Read Full Thread Reply
13/9/2018 06:11	Question; Maynard Payton raises a good point around the pension deficit here and whether contributions need to be ratcheted higher. They could definitely afford higher payments but wondering if we are missing something. Interest rates slightly rising will help but any sustained fall in equities could see a sharper jump in the deficit on the face of it given the required return rate to offset the high benefit payments hxxps://maynardpaton.com/2018/05/25/initial-reviews-airea-octagonal-and-richoux/	pireric	Read Full Thread Reply

Chat Pages: 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 Older