What drives Air Canada's stock price?
Jan 18, 2016, 9:13 am
#151
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 797
Too much capacity added. Too much discounting to fill it.
The net result are earnings, or a lack thereof, from Oct 2015 through June 2016 that have the potential to surprise the market. Markets don't like to be surprised.
Perhaps the market's picked up on IR's Jan 12th email announcement of quarterly earnings dates.
The first two quarters of 2016 announcements were moved to Friday's, (1Q on Friday April 29th), and 2Q numbers were moved to Friday July 29th, the Friday before the August long weekend! Third quarter numbers, which are always good, are scheduled for a Monday release on Nov 7th.
One does not typically release corporate earnings on a Friday, and especially a Friday before a 3 day weekend. That day is reserved for news you want to bury.
The real surprise is their having made the decision in early January to release numbers for a quarter that doesn't begin for another 75 days on a Friday before a long weekend six and a half months from now. Bay Street may have interpreted that as a defacto profit warning, thus the reason for the recent brutal sell off.
We shall see what transpires.
The net result are earnings, or a lack thereof, from Oct 2015 through June 2016 that have the potential to surprise the market. Markets don't like to be surprised.
Perhaps the market's picked up on IR's Jan 12th email announcement of quarterly earnings dates.
The first two quarters of 2016 announcements were moved to Friday's, (1Q on Friday April 29th), and 2Q numbers were moved to Friday July 29th, the Friday before the August long weekend! Third quarter numbers, which are always good, are scheduled for a Monday release on Nov 7th.
One does not typically release corporate earnings on a Friday, and especially a Friday before a 3 day weekend. That day is reserved for news you want to bury.
The real surprise is their having made the decision in early January to release numbers for a quarter that doesn't begin for another 75 days on a Friday before a long weekend six and a half months from now. Bay Street may have interpreted that as a defacto profit warning, thus the reason for the recent brutal sell off.
We shall see what transpires.
Last edited by HangTen; Jan 18, 2016 at 6:50 pm
Jan 18, 2016, 9:14 am
#152
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: YYZ
Programs: AC E50K (*G) WS Gold | SPG/Fairmont Plat Hilton/Hyatt Diamond Marriott Silver | National Exec Elite
Posts: 19,284
If I had just acted hastily without reading people's feedback, I would have lost money. The circumstances then are hardly the same as they were a few months, let alone a year or so ago. None of the comments you have made so far have helped me make up my mind.
Too much capacity added. Too much discounting to fill it.
The net result are earnings, or a lack thereof, from Oct 2015 through June 2016 that have the potential to surprise the market. Markets don't like to be surprised.
Perhaps the market's picked up on IR's Jan 12th email announcement of quarterly earnings dates.
The first two quarters of 2016 announcements were moved to Friday's, (1Q on Friday April 29th), and 2Q numbers were moved to Friday July 29th, the Friday before the August long weekend! Third quarter numbers, which are always good, are scheduled for a Monday release on Nov 7th.
One does not typically release stellar corporate earnings on a Friday, and especially a Friday before a 3 day weekend. That day is reserved for news you want to bury.
The real surprise is their having made the decision in early January to release numbers for a quarter that doesn't begin for another 75 days on a Friday before a long weekend six and a half months from now. Bay Street may have interpreted that as a defacto profit warning, thus the reason for the recent brutal sell off.
We shall see what transpires.
The net result are earnings, or a lack thereof, from Oct 2015 through June 2016 that have the potential to surprise the market. Markets don't like to be surprised.
Perhaps the market's picked up on IR's Jan 12th email announcement of quarterly earnings dates.
The first two quarters of 2016 announcements were moved to Friday's, (1Q on Friday April 29th), and 2Q numbers were moved to Friday July 29th, the Friday before the August long weekend! Third quarter numbers, which are always good, are scheduled for a Monday release on Nov 7th.
One does not typically release stellar corporate earnings on a Friday, and especially a Friday before a 3 day weekend. That day is reserved for news you want to bury.
The real surprise is their having made the decision in early January to release numbers for a quarter that doesn't begin for another 75 days on a Friday before a long weekend six and a half months from now. Bay Street may have interpreted that as a defacto profit warning, thus the reason for the recent brutal sell off.
We shall see what transpires.
Last edited by superangrypenguin; Jan 18, 2016 at 9:33 am
Jan 18, 2016, 10:30 am
#153
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,784
Too much capacity added. Too much discounting to fill it.
The net result are earnings, or a lack thereof, from Oct 2015 through June 2016 that have the potential to surprise the market. Markets don't like to be surprised.
Perhaps the market's picked up on IR's Jan 12th email announcement of quarterly earnings dates.
The first two quarters of 2016 announcements were moved to Friday's, (1Q on Friday April 29th), and 2Q numbers were moved to Friday July 29th, the Friday before the August long weekend! Third quarter numbers, which are always good, are scheduled for a Monday release on Nov 7th.
One does not typically release stellar corporate earnings on a Friday, and especially a Friday before a 3 day weekend. That day is reserved for news you want to bury.
The real surprise is their having made the decision in early January to release numbers for a quarter that doesn't begin for another 75 days on a Friday before a long weekend six and a half months from now. Bay Street may have interpreted that as a defacto profit warning, thus the reason for the recent brutal sell off.
We shall see what transpires.
The net result are earnings, or a lack thereof, from Oct 2015 through June 2016 that have the potential to surprise the market. Markets don't like to be surprised.
Perhaps the market's picked up on IR's Jan 12th email announcement of quarterly earnings dates.
The first two quarters of 2016 announcements were moved to Friday's, (1Q on Friday April 29th), and 2Q numbers were moved to Friday July 29th, the Friday before the August long weekend! Third quarter numbers, which are always good, are scheduled for a Monday release on Nov 7th.
One does not typically release stellar corporate earnings on a Friday, and especially a Friday before a 3 day weekend. That day is reserved for news you want to bury.
The real surprise is their having made the decision in early January to release numbers for a quarter that doesn't begin for another 75 days on a Friday before a long weekend six and a half months from now. Bay Street may have interpreted that as a defacto profit warning, thus the reason for the recent brutal sell off.
We shall see what transpires.
LOD $7.37, we're already 50% from 52-week high of $15.09 (too bad I didn't sell)
Jan 18, 2016, 11:51 am
#154
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: sqrt(-united states of apologist)
Programs: *$ Green
Posts: 5,403
Greetings to you sir!
The day anyone takes financial advice from an AC FT thread is the day said person should consider handing over the responsibility to a professional investment advisor.
Last edited by tcook052; Jan 18, 2016 at 12:27 pm
Jan 21, 2016, 6:22 pm
#155
Join Date: May 2012
Location: BKK/SIN/YYZ/YUL
Programs: DL, AC, Bonvoy, Accor, Hilton
Posts: 2,918
Shhh. With some people it's best not to say anything: Just sit back and watch the show. Ever hear the expression of giving someone enough rope?
Feb 3, 2016, 12:09 pm
#157
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YYC
Posts: 23,802
"In the long term we'll all be dead"
Here is a good case for a more enlightened look, alas.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...tter.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...tter.html?_r=0
Feb 3, 2016, 12:33 pm
#158
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: sqrt(-united states of apologist)
Programs: *$ Green
Posts: 5,403
Preamble: Jerry, I am posting right after you, but I am in no way referring to you. Disclaimer, I am making a general observation on the topic of "things that drive the AC stock thread" contrasted with opinions and views observed in other AC FT threads, in hopes of giving a glimmer of light to those that are not professional stock analyst.
I am always amazed by this thread. Sometimes, when I am bored and see it pop back up (which I guess is always), I go back and read some stuff.
It's crazy how there can be such conflicting opinions. For example, "AC is a monopoly and charges too much, gouging clients for every penny they have". But then you hear (sometimes from the same people), "AC is so bad it can't make money because no one flies them because they are horrible".
What?
How is that even?
A corporation benefiting from a monopoly losing clients to a competitor offering the same product? How is this even remotely arguable?
These kind of arguments are why I hate this thread with a passion.
When you sit down and think about the conflicting information that drives this (oh so informative) fundamental analysis of the Air Canada stock performance that our AC FT community is (oh so selflessly and generously) sharing cannot be taken seriously. (And I am not even talking about silly newsletter/websites that actually just try to create random momentum/volume just to cash in on some positions).
As a famous message board once said:
Stock (and therefore company) performance is indeed driven by certain fundamentals. Sure, these can be things like geographical/political advantages or oil price fluctuations, but one thing remains the same. MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW HOW THESE FACTORS INFLUENCE THE COMPANY'S BOTTOM LINE, AND THAT IS THE NAME OF THE GAME.
Stock future performance can only be estimate in one of two ways:
Very few people know/understand how to do this. And I would be surprised if anyone in this thread or on FT can do this. (Matter of fact, I know of some people on FT who can do this but have yet to see them post in this thread or participate in a way that would give direct advice to others.)
inb4:
Because I actually care about people. Because I know that some people trust the FT community a lot, and could end up taking "advice" from others and end up get burned. Because making a bad trade can have repercussions much worse than redeeming miles for a less interesting flight. Because if I was in a bind and needed help with IT stuff and was about to do something incredibly stupid that someone from the internet told me to do, I would hope that someone with an IT background would step and prevent me from smashing straight into a wall. Because I don't want other individuals to take advantage of others. The list can go on, but I think you get the point.
tl;dr: You don't drink and drive. So don't read FT and invest in airline stocks.
I am always amazed by this thread. Sometimes, when I am bored and see it pop back up (which I guess is always), I go back and read some stuff.
It's crazy how there can be such conflicting opinions. For example, "AC is a monopoly and charges too much, gouging clients for every penny they have". But then you hear (sometimes from the same people), "AC is so bad it can't make money because no one flies them because they are horrible".
What?
How is that even? A corporation benefiting from a monopoly losing clients to a competitor offering the same product? How is this even remotely arguable?
These kind of arguments are why I hate this thread with a passion.
When you sit down and think about the conflicting information that drives this (oh so informative) fundamental analysis of the Air Canada stock performance that our AC FT community is (oh so selflessly and generously) sharing cannot be taken seriously. (And I am not even talking about silly newsletter/websites that actually just try to create random momentum/volume just to cash in on some positions).
As a famous message board once said:
The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
Stock (and therefore company) performance is indeed driven by certain fundamentals. Sure, these can be things like geographical/political advantages or oil price fluctuations, but one thing remains the same. MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW HOW THESE FACTORS INFLUENCE THE COMPANY'S BOTTOM LINE, AND THAT IS THE NAME OF THE GAME.
Stock future performance can only be estimate in one of two ways:
- 1 By being "in the game" and looking at how/when things start changing hands. Events that could trigger massive selloffs. Basically knowing what will create a situation where there will be an imbalance of sellers to purchasers. Believe it or not, but this alone is one of the biggest factors in stock price movements, and becomes an even bigger factor the smaller the company is. (Trust me. When someone like OPP says "fromage it, we're out", they can't just log in to webbroker x, click 'sell', and cash in 5 minutes later at bid price.)
- 2 Quantifiable Technological/Political changes that can be turned into measured effect on input prices and factors of production, as well as its effect on revenue. These can be either directly quantifiable and certain (Air Canada will be purchasing its Jet Fuel at $x per tonne), or uncertain but measurable (here is a current price and expected future type subject x uncertainty measure which gives us a distribution (finite or infinite) of potential measurable and quantifiable expected prices/outcomes).
Very few people know/understand how to do this. And I would be surprised if anyone in this thread or on FT can do this. (Matter of fact, I know of some people on FT who can do this but have yet to see them post in this thread or participate in a way that would give direct advice to others.)
inb4:
So then SparseFlyer, why don't you GTFO from this thread and let us do our own thing?
tl;dr: You don't drink and drive. So don't read FT and invest in airline stocks.
Last edited by SparseFlyer; Feb 3, 2016 at 12:50 pm Reason: Added some cute stuff.
Feb 3, 2016, 12:39 pm
#159
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Why? Why? Zed! / Why? You? Elle! / Gee! Are You!
Programs: Irrelevant
Posts: 3,543
Feb 3, 2016, 12:45 pm
#160
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: sqrt(-united states of apologist)
Programs: *$ Green
Posts: 5,403
Here is a good case for a more enlightened look, alas.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...tter.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...tter.html?_r=0
I agree on the increase in more forward looking statements, but I can somewhat disagree on increasing capital reinvestment. It's that view of "lets try and achieve perpetual maximum growth" that I find dangerous (which is what seems to be implied).
IMHO, the general perspective should be "if the company cannot generate better returns than what "I" can do on my own, then the company should pay more cash to the investor". There is no point for the company to retain more capital than it needs unless it can actually reinvest it and create a high growth rate. This becomes especially true for low growth well established markets (think about the big telcos that can't just post double digit subscriber growth when nearly everyone has a cellphone and internet connection already).
However, it is my understanding that the big reason why there aren't more forward looking plans is twofold.
First, the legal BS that every public company needs to abide by:
Certain statements in this report, other than statements of historical fact, are forward-looking statements based on certain assumptions and reflect IGM Financial's current expectations. Forward-looking statements are provided to assist the reader in understanding the Company's financial position and results of operations as at and for the periods ended on certain dates and to present information about management's current expectations and plans relating to the future. Readers are cautioned that such statements may not be appropriate for other purposes. These statements may include, without limitation, statements regarding the operations, business, financial condition, expected financial results, performance, prospects, opportunities, priorities, targets, goals, ongoing objectives, strategies and outlook of the Company, as well as the outlook for North American and international economies, for the current fiscal year and subsequent periods. Forward-looking statements include statements that are predictive in nature, depend upon or refer to future events or conditions, or include words such as "expects", "anticipates", "plans", "believes", "estimates", "seeks", "intends", "targets", "projects", "forecasts" or negative versions thereof and other similar expressions, or future or conditional verbs such as "may", "will", "should", "would" and "could".
It is our belief that, according to our analysis (see annex A,B,C) that, if we are considering the statements estimated in section 2.4 and 3.4, under conditions mentioned in the pervious section, we could potentially, under the right conditions, provided that events x and y happen (but z does not), pursue one of the six potential plans mentioned in section 11.2, given that all of our predictions are correct. However, we could be forced to not pursue anything of the above if any of the following 20 events occur, but note that the list is most likely incomplete and new items could be introduced at any time.
Second, exposing your long-term plan basically means telling all your competitors what you are planning to do to outsmart them. Doing that would mean forgoing future potential profit. Executives are required (by law) to maximize company profits, so I guess this could be construed as intentionally not maximizing profits.
But thanks for the article, it's a nice change of pace for this thread.
Last edited by SparseFlyer; Feb 3, 2016 at 12:57 pm
Feb 3, 2016, 12:51 pm
#161
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: sqrt(-united states of apologist)
Programs: *$ Green
Posts: 5,403
Feb 3, 2016, 7:10 pm
#162
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,784
Let's see if this good "Record January traffic" news does anything tomorrow to the stock
Air Canada Reports Record January Traffic (cnw)
Traffic increased 7.1 per cent for the month
MONTREAL, Feb. 3, 2016 /CNW Telbec/ - For the month of January, Air Canada reported a system-wide capacity increase of 7.1 per cent and a record load factor of 80.1 per cent tying last year's record. On this additional capacity, traffic increased 7.1 per cent. Air Canada reports traffic results on a system-wide basis, including regional airlines from which Air Canada purchases capacity and Air Canada rouge®.
"I am pleased to report a record load factor of 80.1 per cent for the month of January," said Calin Rovinescu, President and Chief Executive Officer. "In January, Air Canada generated greater traffic in all markets served led by Atlantic, Pacific, Latin American and Caribbean markets in which we also achieved increases in load factors from the previous year. These strong results underscore the effectiveness of our commercial strategy with its focus on international growth, aggressive expansion of Air Canada rouge in leisure markets, focus on sixth freedom traffic to feed Canadian hubs, Boeing 777 aircraft seat densification, introduction of a Premium Economy product, A++ Joint Venture with Star Alliance partners and regional airline diversification. This strategy along with the transformative changes we have made in recent years provide us with the cost structure, fleet and flexibility to respond not only to competitive market conditions, but also to fluctuations in the Canadian dollar and economic downturns. We have a proven track record of proactively and effectively managing capacity to meet demand and we will continue to adjust capacity to maximize profitability. I would like to thank our customers for choosing Air Canada as their preferred carrier and our employees for taking care of them while transporting them safely to their destination."
Traffic increased 7.1 per cent for the month
MONTREAL, Feb. 3, 2016 /CNW Telbec/ - For the month of January, Air Canada reported a system-wide capacity increase of 7.1 per cent and a record load factor of 80.1 per cent tying last year's record. On this additional capacity, traffic increased 7.1 per cent. Air Canada reports traffic results on a system-wide basis, including regional airlines from which Air Canada purchases capacity and Air Canada rouge®.
"I am pleased to report a record load factor of 80.1 per cent for the month of January," said Calin Rovinescu, President and Chief Executive Officer. "In January, Air Canada generated greater traffic in all markets served led by Atlantic, Pacific, Latin American and Caribbean markets in which we also achieved increases in load factors from the previous year. These strong results underscore the effectiveness of our commercial strategy with its focus on international growth, aggressive expansion of Air Canada rouge in leisure markets, focus on sixth freedom traffic to feed Canadian hubs, Boeing 777 aircraft seat densification, introduction of a Premium Economy product, A++ Joint Venture with Star Alliance partners and regional airline diversification. This strategy along with the transformative changes we have made in recent years provide us with the cost structure, fleet and flexibility to respond not only to competitive market conditions, but also to fluctuations in the Canadian dollar and economic downturns. We have a proven track record of proactively and effectively managing capacity to meet demand and we will continue to adjust capacity to maximize profitability. I would like to thank our customers for choosing Air Canada as their preferred carrier and our employees for taking care of them while transporting them safely to their destination."
Feb 4, 2016, 2:04 am
#163
Original Member
Original Poster
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 6,222
Preamble: Jerry, I am posting right after you, but I am in no way referring to you. Disclaimer, I am making a general observation on the topic of "things that drive the AC stock thread" contrasted with opinions and views observed in other AC FT threads, in hopes of giving a glimmer of light to those that are not professional stock analyst.
I am always amazed by this thread. Sometimes, when I am bored and see it pop back up (which I guess is always), I go back and read some stuff.
It's crazy how there can be such conflicting opinions. For example, "AC is a monopoly and charges too much, gouging clients for every penny they have". But then you hear (sometimes from the same people), "AC is so bad it can't make money because no one flies them because they are horrible".
What? How is that even?
A corporation benefiting from a monopoly losing clients to a competitor offering the same product? How is this even remotely arguable?
These kind of arguments are why I hate this thread with a passion.
When you sit down and think about the conflicting information that drives this (oh so informative) fundamental analysis of the Air Canada stock performance that our AC FT community is (oh so selflessly and generously) sharing cannot be taken seriously. (And I am not even talking about silly newsletter/websites that actually just try to create random momentum/volume just to cash in on some positions).
As a famous message board once said:
Stock (and therefore company) performance is indeed driven by certain fundamentals. Sure, these can be things like geographical/political advantages or oil price fluctuations, but one thing remains the same. MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW HOW THESE FACTORS INFLUENCE THE COMPANY'S BOTTOM LINE, AND THAT IS THE NAME OF THE GAME.
Stock future performance can only be estimate in one of two ways:
Very few people know/understand how to do this. And I would be surprised if anyone in this thread or on FT can do this. (Matter of fact, I know of some people on FT who can do this but have yet to see them post in this thread or participate in a way that would give direct advice to others.)
inb4:
Because I actually care about people. Because I know that some people trust the FT community a lot, and could end up taking "advice" from others and end up get burned. Because making a bad trade can have repercussions much worse than redeeming miles for a less interesting flight. Because if I was in a bind and needed help with IT stuff and was about to do something incredibly stupid that someone from the internet told me to do, I would hope that someone with an IT background would step and prevent me from smashing straight into a wall. Because I don't want other individuals to take advantage of others. The list can go on, but I think you get the point.
tl;dr: You don't drink and drive. So don't read FT and invest in airline stocks.
I am always amazed by this thread. Sometimes, when I am bored and see it pop back up (which I guess is always), I go back and read some stuff.
It's crazy how there can be such conflicting opinions. For example, "AC is a monopoly and charges too much, gouging clients for every penny they have". But then you hear (sometimes from the same people), "AC is so bad it can't make money because no one flies them because they are horrible".
What?
How is that even? A corporation benefiting from a monopoly losing clients to a competitor offering the same product? How is this even remotely arguable?
These kind of arguments are why I hate this thread with a passion.
When you sit down and think about the conflicting information that drives this (oh so informative) fundamental analysis of the Air Canada stock performance that our AC FT community is (oh so selflessly and generously) sharing cannot be taken seriously. (And I am not even talking about silly newsletter/websites that actually just try to create random momentum/volume just to cash in on some positions).
As a famous message board once said:
Stock (and therefore company) performance is indeed driven by certain fundamentals. Sure, these can be things like geographical/political advantages or oil price fluctuations, but one thing remains the same. MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW HOW THESE FACTORS INFLUENCE THE COMPANY'S BOTTOM LINE, AND THAT IS THE NAME OF THE GAME.
Stock future performance can only be estimate in one of two ways:
- 1 By being "in the game" and looking at how/when things start changing hands. Events that could trigger massive selloffs. Basically knowing what will create a situation where there will be an imbalance of sellers to purchasers. Believe it or not, but this alone is one of the biggest factors in stock price movements, and becomes an even bigger factor the smaller the company is. (Trust me. When someone like OPP says "fromage it, we're out", they can't just log in to webbroker x, click 'sell', and cash in 5 minutes later at bid price.)
- 2 Quantifiable Technological/Political changes that can be turned into measured effect on input prices and factors of production, as well as its effect on revenue. These can be either directly quantifiable and certain (Air Canada will be purchasing its Jet Fuel at $x per tonne), or uncertain but measurable (here is a current price and expected future type subject x uncertainty measure which gives us a distribution (finite or infinite) of potential measurable and quantifiable expected prices/outcomes).
Very few people know/understand how to do this. And I would be surprised if anyone in this thread or on FT can do this. (Matter of fact, I know of some people on FT who can do this but have yet to see them post in this thread or participate in a way that would give direct advice to others.)
inb4:
Because I actually care about people. Because I know that some people trust the FT community a lot, and could end up taking "advice" from others and end up get burned. Because making a bad trade can have repercussions much worse than redeeming miles for a less interesting flight. Because if I was in a bind and needed help with IT stuff and was about to do something incredibly stupid that someone from the internet told me to do, I would hope that someone with an IT background would step and prevent me from smashing straight into a wall. Because I don't want other individuals to take advantage of others. The list can go on, but I think you get the point.
tl;dr: You don't drink and drive. So don't read FT and invest in airline stocks.
So.... market forces, right?
Feb 4, 2016, 10:34 am
#164
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,784
In bear markets, basics, fundamentals do NOT matter
heck, even good earnings may not matter, people say "price follow earnings"... EVENTUALLY
FT, analysts, nobody can "estimate"...
markets can stay irrational longer than we can stay solvent
Anyway, I don't try to make sense of AC.ca stock movement anymore..
+4% today at least
heck, even good earnings may not matter, people say "price follow earnings"... EVENTUALLY
FT, analysts, nobody can "estimate"...
markets can stay irrational longer than we can stay solvent
Anyway, I don't try to make sense of AC.ca stock movement anymore..
+4% today at least
Feb 4, 2016, 10:46 am
#165
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: YYZ
Programs: Only J via Peasant Points, 777HDPeasant or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance and Narcissism.
Posts: 5,951
In bear markets, basics, fundamentals do NOT matter
heck, even good earnings may not matter, people say "price follow earnings"... EVENTUALLY
FT, analysts, nobody can "estimate"...
markets can stay irrational longer than we can stay solvent
Anyway, I don't try to make sense of AC.ca stock movement anymore..
+4% today at least
heck, even good earnings may not matter, people say "price follow earnings"... EVENTUALLY
FT, analysts, nobody can "estimate"...
markets can stay irrational longer than we can stay solvent
Anyway, I don't try to make sense of AC.ca stock movement anymore..
+4% today at least
