valeite
03 Feb 2017
Re: £2.40 or £2.90 £2.9 target(i should proof read)
valeite
03 Feb 2017
£2.40 or £2.90 a broker downgrade targeting £2.4 (can't remember who ) on monday but morgan stanley raises WMH to =weight and £2.p target today
Punilux
31 Jan 2017
Re: A warning on gambling shares 4 and a... Could someone wiser than me comment on the latest fall in bookmaker's share price, and why WMH are apparently leading the way? LAD/COR have a lot of debt tied up in bricks and mortar betting shops. Ditto Betfred , who have just rescheduled loans to cover further purchases. PP was on the acquisition trail, and the new entity could face legislative problems relating to Brexit. Independents are closing down at an increasing rate. The fact that they are not being sold as going concerns should say a bit about the relative states of their profits. WMH appear to have almost all of their debt relating to attempts to diversify away from Licensed Betting Offices in the UK.. I realise that this has been cunningly disguised by having ludicrous schemes such as share buybacks, which has provided sellers with a better price than they would otherwise get, at the expense of people holding onto their shares. Even so, the WMH model certainly differs from their High Street rivals.
pearlsasinger
26 Jan 2017
Solidarity As a gesture of solidarity with my fellow shareholders--I have switched my betting accountfrom PP to William Hill.This will undoubtedly increase WMH profits.
nk1999
25 Jan 2017
UBS From ADVFN:"UBS downgraded William Hill to 'sell' from 'neutral' and cut the price target to 240p from 295p, saying the market has not priced in the fixed odds betting terminal risk for the bookmaker.UBS reckons the market is pricing in either no downside risk to Retail earnings before interest and taxes or a multiple for the Online business which it views as stretched given Online key performance indicators and the latest app download trends from its UBS Evidence Lab study.The bank has cut its valuation multiple for the Retail business from 8x to 5x EBITDA to reflect the regulatory risk, and this drives the target cut and rating downgrade."With increasing regulation and volatility of sports results, coupled with current valuations, we believe it prudent to have a neutral exposure to the sector with clear preference for Ladbrokes Coral," UBS said.UBS said data shows that for William Hill in the UK, the share of app downloads has fallen from 22% in the first half of 2014 to just 10% in the second half of 2016.The bank said it continues to prefer Ladbrokes Coral, which it rates at 'buy'."
pearlsasinger
24 Jan 2017
the Gamble I have just joined the 'gamble'here.But it looks a bet laid a little too earlyon the basis of today's continuedSP fall??
valeite
15 Jan 2017
Re: Torches just when u think it can't get worse.....this story turns up OMG
Punilux
15 Jan 2017
Torches WMH have now requested that their staff turn up at rival shops and shine torches at customers. When asked by The Guardian , whose journalists had seen the memo, why employees were being told this they were told that other chain's punters "should see the light". Of course WMH has televised racing from all UK and SA tracks whilst LadCor and Done's have still to reach agreement with the license holders. I look forward to rival shop staff turning up at Hills disguised as Peter Kaye or Amber Rudd and shouting out that WMH's chairman is clueless. Can shareholders think of anything that can humiliate an already dispirited workforce more than WMH's gormless idea?
Punilux
09 Jan 2017
Re: Profit Warning Bad For Racing? WMH just made it, despite the £20M hit. I hope that the fully audited figures come to £260M..
Punilux
06 Jan 2017
Tom Waterhouse Tom Waterhouse is fronting the re-launch of Centrebet in Aus. What is interesting is that WMH , in the UK, made the decision to close it a couple of years ago and migrate the accounts to the William Hill brand name. At significant expense. Obviously Mr Waterhouse has friends in high places in Wood Green, so hopefully he will be asked to investigate some other recent decisions that might be reversed. Like share buybacks/increased dividends when the group's debt is rocketing.
Punilux
29 Dec 2016
Profit Warning Bad For Racing? All the top Premier League sides won as did the favourites in the main UK races over Christmas so it's perfect storm time again. It has come at a good time for bookies who are presently "negotiating" payments to racing based on (non-existent) profits and the ability to keep shops open by having high stakes FOBTs.
Punilux
09 Dec 2016
Re: A warning on gambling shares 4 and a... Gambling Insider report that WMH offering online roulette with maximum winnings per spin of £1,000,000 . Looks like the rise of FOTs has been stalled!
Punilux
09 Dec 2016
Re: A warning on gambling shares 4 and a... ....but still no answer, after all these years, as to why WMH investors are the only people to benefit from your wisdom when other listed companies rely on FOTs to a far greater extent. Or that other companies have been fined for ignoring FOT legislation, but not WMH. Has someone deleted all your comments from LAD/CORAL or PP/BETFAIR sites when their shortcomings were punished and a real Gambling Commission (not an amusement arcade lobbying group, ignored by bookies) promised to bring in OFGEM sized fines for future transgressions ?
pyueck
08 Dec 2016
Re: A warning on gambling shares 4 and a... Eadwig, thanks for your response. I hear the argument 'but other sectors are bad too' quite a lot. And you are right this is an investment forum. That's why my argument is not a moral one.My argument on this forum is a purely investment one, about risk. I believe that the message that the industry told investors and regulators for a long time has in time proven to not be true. That message was that the vast amount of the people that use their services do not have a problem with gambling. While it may be true that a small minority of people that ever have a bet have a problem, I would suggest (although nobody has done proper research on this) that a large amount of a gambling companies revenue comes from people who potentially have a problem. As I say go into a betting shop and make up your mind.Now as I say my argument here is not a moral one, one could legitimately argue that those gambling are responsible for their actions and companies like wmh should be allowed to prosper as a result, and the correct response is regulation to maximise tax take.My argument is that I don't think that is what will or indeed is happening, I believe that the government largely believed the industry and its statistics for a long time, I think that is changing. I believe that the government will increasingly see the damage done from the growth of gambling (not just FOBT's) and will believe it is in the interest of society to regulate it. You may not agree with me, that's fine. I just see difficult times ahead.
Eadwig
08 Dec 2016
Re: A warning on gambling shares 4 and a hal... pyueck,You're always posting on here about gambling addiction. But this is the stock market, its about investing in companies that hopefully create value and consequently reward stockholders.I wonder what you invest in? I can make much stronger moral cases for damage caused by addiction or harmful or damaging side-effects from practices in sectors such as pharmaceuticals, construction, mining, television, oil and gas, tobacco, autos, banks, sugar, software, telecoms, alcohol, cleaning products, computers, machine tools, wind turbines, robotics, nuclear power, electricity transmission, housing, farming, biotech, water, steel, health care, publishing, business consultancy. I could go on.Forms of gambling have been documented for thousands of years, but you appear to think that it is some new kind of threat to human kind. The fact is that any activity that gives pleasure can also be described as addictive and this shows up on scans in brain activity. In blind tests, scans from brains of people E.g. eating red meat or doing a daily work-out routine can't be distinguished from recreational drug taking. What about individual choice?The one thing you got right is that "there is a growing lobby group against gambling expansion".Spot on. What you apparently have failed to realise is this is just one part of a dangerous lobbying sector which is a whole industry in itself and has had phenomenal growth in the area of lobbying against things going back to the imposition of drink-driving limits.Those people involved had success and then realised they had been so involved they now needed a new job. They began to make careers as professional lobbyists, not to promote things, as was traditional, but a whole new growth area that targets certain behaviours, traditions or practices. As professionals, they no longer care if they actually believe in the cause or not, its about size and momentum, the bigger and more fanatical the cause, the greater the funds they can suck in and the larger the salaries they can command. This all proved extremely easy to do and soon new movements were being thought up not because of any real need, or any need that should be given priority, but because of the ease of the particular cause to achieve the above criteria. They use extremely insidious techniques to recruit people to the cause, often imbuing it with the fervour of some kind of class war or moral or religious crusade if they can.Worse still, as professionals they have no moral problem moving in on and applying the same techniques in organisations of genuine usefulness, including what is now a burgeoning charity and 'not-for-profit' sector.The industry has very little regulation and sucks in the vulnerable who are most open to suggestion, making donations they can't afford and who can often waste thousands of hours of their lives as 'unpaid volunteers' attempting to recruit others and extracting money from donors and very often central and local government grants too. Often diverting scarce funds from areas that should be given greater priority.Many of these organisations employ methods that result directly or indirectly in vulnerable recruits actively taking part in criminal activities E.g. extreme examples of activism responsible for acts of sabotage, fraud, theft, violence, environmental, social and criminal damage.I wonder if you actually recognise any of this in your own particular fervour?
