gamesinvestor
24 Apr 2018
Down 12% Just hit 297 againDisposal of Australian interests confirmed, but is there anything else?Games
Punilux
22 Apr 2018
Star Buy Skybet for £2.5bn.... ....whilst our valuation is close to £2.6 bn. Someone's calculations must be a long way out!
Punilux
05 Apr 2018
Re: (Old) offer on the way 888 had profit warning about a month ago . Rank have had one today. We were supposed to be taking on their debt as well ! BTW , Paaady Power and Betfair never quite managed to realise their promised economies of scale.
Punilux
20 Mar 2018
Re: News today Don't count chickens.The Ladbrokes Coral sale price is based on the final maximum amount playable following the FOBT review. Because there are combinations of cash or cash plus shares available there isn't a specific figure per LCL share if £30 is decided on. Even so, if the market really thought that £30 is certain, or even highly probable, then I think that a 10%+ rise in the Ladbrokes Coral share price would have been extremely likely yesterday. There hasn't been much change. Therefore, the market is far from convinced.So far as WMH is concerned, it is still low hanging fruit for anyone wanting to own an international gambling company with strong cashflow. Anything that indicates that we are going to be a long way from £2 maximum stake is just re-enforcing that.
nk1999
19 Mar 2018
Re: News today Some details from HL news:"............... bookmakers were in focus as the Gambling Commission recommended that the maximum stake for fixed odds betting terminals be cut to £30 or less. It said the maximum stake on slot games such a fruit machines should be £2. As it stands, people can bet up to £100 every 20 seconds on electronic casino games.William Hill, Ladbrokes Coral and Paddy Power Betfair all rallied on the news, as many had feared a bigger cut to as little as £2.Neil Wilson, senior market analyst at ETX Capital, said: "This should be a relief for the sector as the worst-case scenario looks to have been avoided. Ministers will now have to justify a cut below £30 on grounds of significant risk of harm."With the non-slots versions of the B2 machines (roulette etc) far more popular and producing the bulk of revenues for bookies from these machines, this is undoubtedly a positive outcome for bookmakers overall. Although the market had decided a £2 flat cap was looking less likely, the fact the Gambling Commission has left ministers with an easy out for a £30 is perhaps even better than hoped for."
nk1999
19 Mar 2018
News today [link] machine review recommends £30 stake limitShares in bookmakers climbed after the review stopped short of speculation that the limit could be cut to as little as £2........................."
Punilux
04 Mar 2018
Aus According to Racing Post today Sportingbet (Paddy/Betfair) and a Canadian company are the two remaining bidders for the WMH Aus business after LadCor and Bet 365 dropped out. Therefore can assume that:1) It was for sale all along.2) We could lose Mr Waterhouse who might have been a CEO in waiting.3) From the results statement, it is unlikely that any of the bids were close to the (alleged) £200M asking price.4) This could be a zero sum equation if PP/Betfair win, as they could have less in the pot if US legislation changes but we will be in credit by the same amount.Please DYOR!
Punilux
01 Mar 2018
Re: Results I'm sure that you are right, but the reason I use my method is because any bookie will have enormous liabilities. Whilst deposits and "unpaid"/uncollected bets sit on the accounts shouldn't they be deducted from the "actual cash" ? When I worked for Mecca, about a trillion years ago, our daily accounts sheets basically showed cash takings less cash paid out. Therefore all unpaid bets and cash deposits would effectively be losers until someone claimed them.
schwee
23 Feb 2018
Re: Results The net debt figure is arrived at after deducting actual cash, in WMH's case over £300m, which in itself was an increase of over £100m over the previous year.
Punilux
23 Feb 2018
Re: Results I used the "Current Liabilities" and "Non-current Liabilities" sections. They both give an increase in debt. Would I be correct in saying that the "net debt" figure, which is quoted, only refers to some financial instruments but not scheduled trade/bonus/regulatory etc. outstandings ?As normal, am happy to be wrong!
schwee
23 Feb 2018
Re: Results I was a bit unclear about your comment about debt. As I read, net debt reduced by £100m or so, but £75m of this was down to an increase in trade creditors. There as far as I could see no reason given for this in the blurb.As with every company under the sun, business as usual costs are treated as exceptional so as to try and flatter. Nobody is fooled.
Punilux
23 Feb 2018
Results I can't find any hidden nasties, although I'm not sure which onerous contract has cost us £10M. The Australian good-will write off had been flagged earlier, although I am not sure why a company showing an operating profit has increased its debt overall. Dividend increase is a major mistake because we should be keeping our powder dry for regulatory outcomes such as US and FOBTs. Seems it has just happened to keep shareholders happy after (previous) board cost us millions in fines. If circumstances , which are outside the board's control such as £2 limit, lead to a significant drop in SP then we could easily be paying 6-7%. Clearly, a div. cut would drive this down further. Just out of interest, where does the dividend income of shares in treasury appear as it looks like it was "paid" ?
Punilux
21 Feb 2018
Re: Re: There was every incentive.As was pointed out by me during, and after the 2015 AGM, that unless we keep our staff, and end most single manning, our position as a company with an exceptional reputation of integrity would come under pressure. There were reasons that we got the Nevada licenses, whilst others failed.Now we have a heavy fine, which won't really effect our "savings", caused by inadequate staffing. Unfortunately the words "criminal" and "money laundering" appear in the judgement which can not help any future dealing in the US, where, a few days ago, we were in the strongest position. I hope that the newish board can dig us out the mess left by some of their predecessors.
pyueck
20 Feb 2018
Re: A gambling company has no incentive to ensure that it has good responsible gambling controls unless the regulator makes it worth their while with sufficient fines and bans.The reality is that gambling companies have barely ever taken pro-active measures to be sure that clients who display conduct which may be indicative of problem gamblers are approached to a) find out if they have an issue or b) to confirm the source of their funds.I have spoken for years on this as to how a large part of WMH's business may come from those with problem gambling.This investigation has addressed those who are staking large amounts, but for every case like this I am sure they are many more of people who gamble away their benefits or wages due to their problem, with WMH doing little to nothing to protect this individual.Time to wake up, this is a huge problem to which WMH has just paid lip service to it. Now will come back to bite.
Punilux
20 Feb 2018
£5M Fine Why no RNS as this is obviously material to bottom line? As the "cause" was stated as being , effectively, staff shortages before the latest round of job cuts, can we have a statement from the board that running the company properly will be its main priority,...rather than awarding themselves bonuses based on "rationalisation" ?
