Interim results from easyJet PLC (LSE:EZJ) seemed to disappoint investors, sending the shares down 2% on Thursday, but commentary from analysts suggests confidence in the group’s full-year trajectory remains intact, with multiple brokers reiterating their positive stance on the stock.
Peel Hunt’s Alexander Paterson described the first-half result as “broadly consistent with expectations,” noting that the reported loss before tax of £394 million matched consensus and was “a slight improvement YoY on an underlying basis” once the timing of Easter was adjusted for.
April trading was strong too, he noted, pointing to an encouraging start to the second half.
Paterson maintained his 'buy' rating and 900p target price, noting that easyJet Holidays continues to perform well, delivering £44 million in pre-tax profit, “in line with our forecast,” and 77% of second-half holiday capacity already sold.
He also highlighted the company's reaffirmation of its “medium-term target of PBT of more than £1 billion.”
UBS analyst Jarrod Castle echoed the sentiment that the results met expectations, with the PBT figure aligning with consensus and the outlook providing reassurance.
“We expect there to be support for the shares,” Castle commented, citing the forward bookings profile and expectations of “another record summer to drive strong earnings growth.”
Castle also highlighted strong performance in cost control and noted that easyJet Holidays continues to expect customer growth of 25% and early delivery of its £250 million profit target.
At Panmure Liberum, Gerald Khoo maintained a 'buy' rating despite trimming forecasts and reducing the price target to 800p from 830p.
While the company’s ability to narrow winter losses had been hampered by the shift in the timing of Easter, he said the outlook “is reassuring, with management seeing consensus supported by the profile of current bookings”.
While Khoo adjusted his numbers, he pointed to broader strength in the underlying business, including improving unit costs and demand trends: “There were improvements in both fuel and non-fuel unit costs.”