Why we don't show a single “fair value” for AIRS
Even the optimistic scenario of a conservative trailing-FCF model ($0.89) sits far below today's price — the market is paying for growth and durability beyond what this model structure captures. The honest lens is the question below: what growth does today's price actually require? The model scenarios are listed further down for reference.
What would today's price require?
$1.91 is justified only if free cash flow grows about +27.8% a year (fading to 2.5% long-run) at a 11.5% required return — faster than the company has actually grown.
| Scenario | FCF growth (fading to 2.5%) | Discount | Value / share |
|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | 5.2%/yr | 12.5% | $0.31 |
| Base case | 8.2%/yr | 11.5% | $0.56 |
| Optimistic | 11.2%/yr | 10.5% | $0.89 |
Current Price
$1.91
Market-Implied Growth
+27.8%/yr
vs +8.2% 5Y actual
Base-Case Model Value
$0.56
model output — not a price target
Edit the assumptions to see how they change the estimated fair value. Opens seeded with TGM's data-driven base case for AIRS (growth from its own 5-year record, discount from its beta), so the sandbox starts where the scenarios above leave off. Illustrative model — not investment advice.
Base inputs: FCF $6.1M · 0.07B shares · net debt $47.6M
Estimated Fair Value
$0.56
-70.7% vs $1.91
How the estimated fair value shifts with the discount rate (WACC) and terminal growth, holding your 8.2%/yr FCF growth and 10-year horizon fixed. Green = above today's $1.91; red = below. Your current case is outlined.
| WACC ↓ / Terminal → | 1.50% | 2.00% | 2.50% | 3.00% | 3.50% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9.5% | $0.76 | $0.84 | $0.93 | $1.03 | $1.14 |
| 10.5% | $0.60 | $0.66 | $0.72 | $0.79 | $0.88 |
| 11.5% | $0.47 | $0.51 | $0.56 | $0.61 | $0.68 |
| 12.5% | $0.36 | $0.39 | $0.43 | $0.47 | $0.52 |
| 13.5% | $0.27 | $0.29 | $0.33 | $0.36 | $0.40 |
