EFTA00915843.pdf
dataset_9 pdf 109.9 KB • Feb 3, 2026 • 2 pages
From: shendong(,'ta)
To: Epstein Jeffrey <jeevacation@gmail.com>
Subject: Fwd: Stansted proposal
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2011 01:05:21 +0000
J,
The following is the initial analysis of the Stansted opportunity. I think the concerns are valid, and thus the
opportunity does not seem promising.
Again, enjoy your holiday.
I will be in London and NY with my family starting later this week.
Ma Desmond Shum
DATM4Ung14:
4/: huhong(Mtl)H
&fc)1
H 2011,47)923 a tfitMeklalittR+08002304015t24t)
shendong(MS)
RE: Stansted proposal
Desmond :
I have following initial issues with Stansted opportunities before going to next level analysis
I. Airport in general is capital intensive, low-return industry except for those of high growth. Therefore airport
privatization is usually targets for infrastructure fund/ pension fund - long-term structured fund.
2. Stansted is one of the airports regulated by UK government (Competition Commission + Civil Aviation
Authority). The "Regulated Asset Base" is a common tool for regulating returns in the UK's utility and
infrastructure sectors where an owner has a monopoly or quasi-monopoly position. The RAB represents the
accumulated cost of the assets used by the business, net of depreciation. It is used as the base amount against
which charges can be made to ensure an agreed rate of return on investment for the owner. Government
reviews RAB and IRR every 5 years. For Stansted, Charges are set to provide a return on capital equal to an
assumed weighted average cost of capital, which means the return is basically capped.
3. Stansted is mainly for low cost carriers (LCC) flights within UK and Europe. It had its historic high traffic
(24MN) in 2006 and then declined to 18MN in 2010. Low cost airlines have been under pressure since 2008
due to high fuel price, security concern and cyclic leisure travel
So in summary: Stansted has gone through declining traffic, its future traffic from LCC is of high uncertainty,
but upside is capped by WACC level, downside left to investors, therefore more appropriate for long-term
structured/infrastructure fund. May not be right for us
Just some thoughts, let me know if you think differently and want me to take further look into next level details
EFTA00915843
Ellen
Original Message
From: shendong(''ta)
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2011 5:27 PM
To: huhong(M.t.I)
Subject: Fwd:
MtS
Desmond Shum
The information contained in this communication is
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
constitute inside information, and is intended only for
the use of the addressee. It is the property of
Jeffrey Epstein
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
return e-mail or by e-mail to jeevacation®gmail.comcmailto:jeevacation®gmail.com>, and
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
EFTA00915844
Entities
0 total entities mentioned
No entities found in this document
Document Metadata
- Document ID
- 233d084c-4f6f-4c68-8c9f-4ada329047e2
- Storage Key
- dataset_9/EFTA00915843.pdf
- Content Hash
- 63bf1b83e1f1b0a3ae59552e1e18d043
- Created
- Feb 3, 2026