Punilux
08 Dec 2016
Re: Price Action You might be right but The Times has been printing a lot of nonsense about betting shops over the last few months. Who can forget their "true" cost to the NHS of "anti-gambling drugs" when their calculations were out by a factor of about a hundred.? Or their stablemate "The Sun" going on about BBC pundit Robbie Savage's contract with WMH whilst forgetting that SkyBet have the same contract with BBC pundit Ian Wright?Firstly, that doesn't explain the trading yesterday - One screen apparently showed LAD up 1.07% whilst another had 11.07% (lse website I think). WMH also flew on no discernable news. Secondly LAD crashed to a far greater extent this morning than WMH but almost fully recovered. From what I could tell, they still rely on FOTs for their income to a far greater extent than WMH.I know little about National Lottery scratchcards, by I understand that you can bet £25 at a time with just under 50% of the stakes returned as prize money. If FOTs are restricted to this figure it could certainly be argued that roughly 98% of the stakes are returned as prize money with a similar churn. On the other hand you can easily bet £1,000 a spin online, with little taxation, regulation or customer protection.
valeite
08 Dec 2016
Re: Price Action all party parliament group determined to clobber FOBT's .,reports the times .suggestions include limiting FOBT's in betting shops .....limiting the amount that can be gambled.....slowing down the speed of play and i think they are serious about this hence the price fall .
valeite
08 Dec 2016
Re: A warning on gambling shares 4 and a hal... can't argue with most of what you say ....but good regulation is really important .a gambling debt isn't legally enforceable but then criminals come to collect with inevitable consequences .after a euro competition (football) our local pub was over run with violence over private bets in the pub .
pyueck
08 Dec 2016
A warning on gambling shares 4 and a half years on I posted the below in May 2013. Without bragging I would say I would barely change a word. To paraphrase Nigel Farage, none of you are laughing now. I expect the regulatory regime and taxes for bookmakers operating in the UK and abroad to get much tougher still, all with devastating effects for WMH."Is it just me or is there not a huge risk for gambling companies, the elephant in the room that nobody wants to admit.Speak to anybody in the industry and they will tell you that their products are designed for recreational play, they have well developed responsible gambling policies and that while some customers do have problems, for the vast majority of gamblers the pastime is a healthy hobby. They will also tell you that the best way of promoting responsible gambling is regulation which allows gambling to take place in a safe and legal framework, and tax to be raised for government.I think the paragraph above is absolute rubbish and I believe in time the government both in the UK and around the world will realise this. Before anybody invests in gambling I would strongly urge you to realise what you are investing in. Please go into a bookie or watch somebody gambling online. Look at the guy on the FOBT and really ask yourself, does he have a problem as he feeds the machine with notes. Look at the guy storm out after his horse loses and he says he has lost all his money. Go to the deprived areas where many of these offices are located and ask yourself, what is going on. Please ask yourself is that student that has been playing poker till 2am just having some harmless fun or is he setting himself up for a life of pain. Listen to the stories of gambling addicts at Gamblers Anonymous, the pain it's causes their families and the way their lives have been devastated. While I admit some people who gamble do so safely, for far too many it's a dangerous spiral of addiction. Self exclusion are hard to enforce, and when circumvented the bookies do not refund the self excluded person their money. When self excluded the bookies do little to help beyond sending a link to gamcare.And bookies give tiny amounts to responsible gambling, but profit hugely from gambling addicts.Many will argue that eventually the world will regulate gambling and companies like WMH will clean up. I eventually see the absolute opposite happening. Eventually people will realise that gambling is very dangerous, that online casino's, sportsbetting, spreadbetting and poker are hugely addictive that can cause horrendous damage to peoples lives. Governments like Australia were keen to get the tax from gambling, but look now, such huge problems with addiction. There is there a growing lobby group against gambling expansion and I believe it will come to the UK very soon.And let's get one thing clear, the argument that you should regulate gambling to stop it going underground is ridiculous. For an addict it does not matter one bit if the casino is regulated and paying it's taxes, if you lose you lose. regulating gambling, allowing advertising and building a cultural acceptance of gambling you allow many more people to begin gambling (some will become addicts) and give gamblers the confidence to gamble more. While I am sure that if gambling was banned there would be some seedy underground places, the number of current and future addicts would in my opinion be undoubtably lower.This is not based on a religious view, I used to invest in gambling stocks but I wouldn't now. Firstly morally I cannot bring myself to accept dividends that are financed partly from people with gambling problems and secondly I think eventually gambling companies will face a huge crackdown. In fact I think gambling may boom first, the industry explode in popularity before the world realises it has generated an enormous problem of gambling addicts."
Eadwig
08 Dec 2016
Price Action 8% plus down. Unsure what happened over-night. Currently approx @286p.Happily for me, I actually sold my final tranche a few days ago at slightly above break-even levels. I thought the sp had been showing too much weakness and possibly only propped up by the share buyback, I sold on divi payment day which often helps push a share price up 'artificially' as divis are re-invested. [Eadwig tip of the day].Also didn't seem too much chance of an M&A move being taken seriously by the board - WMH seem determined to get their online offering right themselves which is by far their biggest challenge, I feel. Plus what to do with all the bricks and mortar real estate going forward.So out of WMH once again. I think the third time I've bought, averaged down, then managed to get out with a profit, plus divis. I'm not sure I'll be back in again until the regulatory environment and their online service has settled down.
Punilux
30 Nov 2016
Teddy Bails Out About 3 years ago WMH initially had a bid for Playtech accepted before being told by a major shareholder that the offer was not enough. The same person is trying to offload a sizeable chunk of his 35% holding at a discount, although for more than the original offer. Have WMH dodged a bullet?
Punilux
25 Nov 2016
E Sports Licence In Nevada If anyone knows what effect eSports will have on WMH please could they tell me as Nevada has just issued them with a licence to bet on these events. This is the first one issued in the US and will make Nevada the eSports betting "capital of the world" according to Gambling Intelligence. Tracey Crouch, who articulated her feelings regarding betting shops, the levy, advertising and FOBTs prior to Parliamentary hearings on these subjects has feigned surprise that bookies didn't bother to turn up for them. As she obviously knew what everyone was going to say they probably decided to cut down some of the awful pollution in London by not travelling. I hope that this green initiative is rewarded with some tax breaks for the high street wagering community.
II Editor
14 Nov 2016
NEW ARTICLE: William Hill employs internet big-hitters "LSE:WMH:William Hill has parachuted in three new board members in a bid to accelerate the struggling bookie's turnaround after an awful 12 months left it with a rap sheet including a string of failed mergers in a mergers and acquistions-crazed ..."[link]
Punilux
14 Nov 2016
Re: Oh Dear More rubbish figures - We are standing still whilst our rivals are moving ahead despite sharing the same results. No wonder the markets don't like this share! If Sterling had risen against US and Aus $ we would be short of our full year market expectations. I can't say that I recognise any new director and I was hoping for one big name. Strangely, the £10M "sponsorship" of ITV racing from January 1st doesn't get a mention. Obviously this is very good for horse racing as Dubai was effectively paying the bills whilst C4 was the only free to view outlet. If the gambling review considers this to be pre-watershed advertising then there could be severe cutbacks based on lower turnover as far fewer meeting will be covered.
Punilux
10 Nov 2016
Gareth Davis On Way Out? What happens to a FTSE 250 company if it has no chairman or permanent CEO?This should have been a good week for WMH with the Gambling Commission giving a coded warning to PP/Betfair and Corals that if there are any more examples of sharp practices then they could be expecting Ofgem sized fines.
Punilux
07 Nov 2016
Oh Dear Cyber attack on our website last week which lasted several days, according to Racing Post. Looks like we won't be benefiting from some favourable sporting results then
Punilux
03 Nov 2016
Investec... ...have made this a sell with a rec SP at about 245p. They hold about 8% of the shares. Not quite sure why only down 0.44% as there were major fireworks after last, milder, downgrade.The gist of argument is that digital only companies set to prosper in near future whilst bricks and mortar based gambling shares face misery. WMH very exposed as no possibility of merger/takeover until conclusion of upcoming gambling review. Not so sure if one might consider that WMH's digital assets are be downplayed if Trump wins. On the other hand, if Hilary wins all gambling legislation could be tightened. US expansion might be already priced into 888 etal.
Punilux
02 Nov 2016
Re: Still ignore my warnings? I don't doubt that the story might be true, but there should be a little context:Tracey Crouch is not exactly a natural politician. She wanted to ban issuing credit cards to numerous people on the grounds that she had overspent on clothes and had been forced to cut hers up. Then there was last years statement that poorly paid people on tax credits should be banned from buying Sky satellite services. This might all sound like more of the same Saint Tracey saving the poor from themselves. There is a twist though. It is widely reported (Charlie Brooks in The Telegraph for example) that Miss Crouch is "minded" (sic) to cut the amount that high street bookies pay horse racing. Wouldn't it be a surprise if a headline grabbing extra tax on FOBTs was roughly the same as the saving on payments which subsidise the mediocre salaries given to several hundred thousand people directly employed within the Sport of Kings ? As for an advertising ban , don't you think that WMH , Lad/Cor , and Paddy Power etal would welcome not having to spend a large marketing budget so as to see off new rivals with no current market recognition?
pyueck
24 Oct 2016
Still ignore my warnings? [link] idea why only the focus on FOBT's, but still this could have a huge impact considering what % of revenues come from them.As I have said many times before, before you quote me some industry statistic on problem gambling, please go into the shop and tell me what you see. Some people enjoying themselves in a leisure past-time, just like going to the cinema? You tell me.From an investing perspective my point is clear, be under no illusion that the fact that in my opinion a significant % of revenues come from people who are problem gamblers means that the business model is hugely at risk to regulatory risks.
Punilux
20 Oct 2016
Re: Oh dear! The Guardian (yesterday) suggested that there are still quite a number of potential suitors but it would be in WMH's interests to get a real CEO ASAP.
