Here's what you're missing: new investors want more than a sleepy de-risked season pass printing machine. They want it to grow, and a business that isn't taking share isn't a good growth story. They need to be sold on growing a combination of skiers, rev/skier and ancillary revs from real estate, etc. I suspect further acquisitions was likely part of the story, too (see Basin, A for example).I think we are in violent agreement on 90% of this issue, but I'm not tracking here. The higher valuations achieved in this re-financing were precisely BECAUSE of the re-risked P&L. The shift to IKON took place during the lifetime of the original vehicle, so it's natural that the people who benefited were the investors who took the risk to stand up Alterra w/o IKON having been proven. The new investors enjoy the benefit of a much more secure and predictable P&L.
So your thesis is that locals are the main driver of growth, not the enthusiasts (like here) or affluent Northeasterners (you'd think the ski market were a pure duopoly if you listened to the network compared of 30 something's with disposable income). I certainly agree that's been a force in UT and the front range, but it certainly feels like there's been a huge uptick in destination travel to be laid at the feet of EPKON in the last decade. Day trippers aren't a sexy growth story for the stock/CV either. It's part of the mosaic, but the massive shock to the way people in the wealth/population centers back east are the big tickets.This couldn't be further from the case, as I precisely stipulated further down in my post. I'm pushing back against the comically simplistic narrative from some that mega passes are responsible for all/substantially all of the crowding on hills near mountain communities that have seen massive population growth for decades. FWIW, used to be a SB guy. Currently a Mammoth guy and haven't noticed much of a difference there either tbh
Good for you - hope you've been well.Good luck and have fun with the storm!
As mentioned, there's massive anecdotal evidence that more than a wave of UT transplants are to blame (Jackson Hole and Aspen as other examples). Prevailing sentiment is that EPKON is to blame. This was a nod to your well executed sleight of hand to demand burden of proof from your interlocutor when you're the one bucking conventional wisdom (while lappearing to knowing full well the data you ask for isn't really available).So asking people to support their declared hypotheses is "wanting someone else to do the work"? No. Someone said something over the top, unsupported by any evidence, and I asked them to prove it. It's that simple. Your references to backing out reported data from EPKON to get to underlying change in skier visits among indies is the first attempt I've seen at same.