68
Archived articleThis is an archived article from 2019 - please note that any content within the article may be out of date.

Small Cap Value Report (Tue 5 Nov 2019) - Gambling/888, BOTB, FDP, UPGS, FLTA, CTP

Good morning folks,

Quite a few RNS's that may be of interest, but I'm going to start with a quick look at the gambling sector. This follows the publication of an interim report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Gambling Related Harm, which whacked a number of share prices yesterday.

Then the RNS's that I might look at are (provisional list):



Gambling Stocks

  • 888 (in which I have a long position): down 15% in two days
  • Flutter Entertainment (LON:FLTR) (owner of Paddy Power): down 4% in two days
  • GVC Holdings (LON:GVC) (owner of Ladbrokes): down 10% in two days
  • William Hill (LON:WMH): down 17% in two days
  • Rank (LON:RNK): down 10% in two days

Gambling Related Hard APPG: Latest News

All-Party Parliamentary Groups are "informal groups of Members of both Houses with a common interest in particular issues".

They can't pass legislation, but they can make proposals, and their proposals tend to have a good chance of success (since they have cross-party support).

The work carried out on behalf of this particular group has been funded by (and I appreciate the transparency, with these names given on page 1 of the report):

I can't think of any reasons why these groups would want curbs on online gambling, can you? Similarly, it was a coincidence that Sheldon Adelson was Donald Trump's largest donor!

Conspiracy theories aside, let's review some of the key findings:

  • around 20% of online gamblers are net winners. This is not much worse than spread bet/CFD companies. For example, 25% of retail investors at IG Group (LON:IGG) [disclosure: long] are net winners.
  • £5.6 billion was lost by online gamblers in 2018.
  • Proposal: The APPG thinks that it's urgent to introduce stake and deposit limits. There are stake limits at spread bet/CFD companies, so a similar logic applies here, too. The proposed deposit limits aren't quantified.
  • Proposal: The APPG thinks slot machine games should have the same stake limits online as they do in land-based venues, i.e. £2. They don't think that gaming operators are able to adequately assess which gamblers are at-risk and betting more than they can afford.
  • The APPG expressed concern about the aggressive marketing and addictive design of online games. They say that gambling content is available online which would be illegal in an offline setting.
  • Proposal: The APPG thinks that the use of credit cards and overdrafts to fund gambling accounts should be ended immediately.
  • Proposal: operators should improve affordability checks based on the proportion of a gambler's income they are spending. Banks and challenger banks should help operators to do this.
  • Proposals: review the use of bonuses, incentives and affiliates by gambling operators. Operators should also restrict the use of VIP accounts and offer blocking software to customers who wish to self-exclude.
  • Proposal: statutory levy of 1% to fund harm prevention projects.

Other industries are also in the crosshairs:

  • Spread bet/CFDs: "spread betting should fall under the auspices of the Gambling Commission instead of the FCA, and subject to the same social responsibility protections as gambling operators".
  • Gaming: in online games, it's sometimes possible to buy "loot boxes" which have random items inside (health, weapons, etc.). The APPG wants these to be regulated!

Investment Implications

As a shareholder in 888, there is one proposal which particularly stands out to me:

Gambling Commission licensees should cease active trading in jurisdictions that have not formally legalised remote gambling

According to 888's H1 results, revenue from regulated and taxed markets accounted for 74% of total revenues.

While that proportion has been increasing and is likely to continue increasing, I fear that 20%+ of the company's revenues could be threatened by this rule, if it were to come into effect.

The proposed statutory levy of 1% of gross gambling yield would also take a big bite out of 888's margins, as I am not aware of any contribution that it currently makes to harm prevention projects. A 1% drop in revenues might reduce net profit in the UK by c. 10%.

Stake and deposit limits would also clearly damage profitability. Like spread betting companies, casinos (both of the online and offline variety) depend on their high rollers. Those who make big deposits and bet on high stakes are disproportionately responsible for the company's profitability.

However, there is a difference in how these rules would be implemented.

Spread betting companies enjoy exemptions from the rules under the "elective professional client" regime. But there are no exemptions planned for the stake limits on casino style games. It doesn't matter how wealthy you are or how responsible you are as a gambler, it will not be possible to bet more than £2 on a slot machine game, if this APPG gets its way. This would seriously impact the "High Roller"-style revenue generated by these games.

My view

(Please note that I consciously ignore the social/political merits of the proposals, and am only considering the financial consequences! I'm aware of the harm caused by addiction, and I hope that it can be reduced over time.)

There has always been a major regulatory risk to 888 and the gambling sector in general, but it has turned out to be a bit worse than expected. The fact that the two major parties seem to be in agreement on the matter makes change inevitable.

The UK is responsible for 35% of 888's revenue. A 1% levy on this would mean a material hit to profits. 

On top of that, revenues are likely to be significantly lower if credit cards and overdrafts are banned, along with the introduction of deposit limits and stake limits. 888 already warned investors that the Gambling Commission was examining the use of credit cards.

The fact that there would not be any exemptions for high rollers makes it much worse than the situation for spread betting, in my view.

And then there is the threat to revoke licenses, unless operators stop trading in unregulated markets. That's another 20%-25% of revenue that is vulnerable.

I haven't sold my stake in 888 yet, but it is now a candidate for sale. I'm worried that a huge chunk of revenues and margins could be taken out of the business by these rules.

Another reason to sell 888 is to reduce my dividend income, which is something I am gradually working on at the moment.

On the other hand, it could take quite a while for these rules to be enforced, and they may end up being watered down between now and then.

And the regulatory risk was arguably "priced in" already by a low valuation. The EV/EBIT multiple for the current financial year is now perhaps 10x, falling to a single-digit multiple for 2020 based on the pre-existing forecasts.

I might end up selling out of this, but will have to analyse it some more. I'd love to find the patience to hold it, and then ultimately discover that the rule changes weren't so radical after all! Let's see.

This analysis turned out to be a bit longer than anticipated, but hopefully was of some interest!




Best Of The Best (LON:BOTB)

  • Share price: 282p (-1%)
  • No. of shares: 9.4 million
  • Market cap: £26 million

Trading Update

This is micro-cap gambling business which has been covered many times previously in this report, notably by Paul. Here is its website, if you need to remind yourself what it does. And here's a link to Paul's coverage of it in September.

H1 PBT is tracking ahead of expectations:

This is largely attributable to the continued strong performance of the Company's online strategy and move away from physical locations. The Board remains confident about the prospects of the Company in the year ahead and its pure online strategy.

While I haven't studied this company in the same detail as Paul, I share his positive impression of management and I admire its track record of profitable growth.

From a regulatory perspective (and bearing in mind that I'm not a lawyer), BOTB runs a prize competition.

The gambling commission has this to say about prize competitions:

To be a genuine prize competition, rather than a lottery, there must be an element of skill, knowledge or judgment that is reasonably likely to prevent a significant proportion of people who wish to participate from doing so or prevent a significant proportion of people who participate from receiving a prize.  
For example, if a panel of judges determine the position of the ball and participants have to apply judgment, skill or knowledge to match their own decision of where the ball is with that of the panel, it is more likely to be a prize competition than a lottery.  

If the competitions were instead considered to be games of chance or lotteries, then it would be illegal for BOTB to run them without a gaming license (or at all).

In summary, BOTB's "Spot the Ball" competition relies on its classification as a "game of skill" that "prevents a significant proportion of people who participate from receiving a prize" for its lack of regulation.

The nuances involved here might not be obvious to those who haven't looked into it.

I don't think there is any evidence that parliamentarians are about to start regulating "Spot the Ball" competitions, even after reading the APPG report this morning, but I wouldn't rule it out happening some day!




First Derivatives (LON:FDP)

  • Share price: 2289p (+4%)
  • No. of shares: 26.5 million
  • Market cap: £607 million

Interim Results

This was the target of a short attack in October 2018, and the share price hasn't quite been the same since.

It's hard to summarise exactly what First Derivatives does: its own summary is that it provides "products and consulting services", and has a "world-leading database technology".

FD says that its competitive advantage "derives from its unique combination of knowledge of financial markets and expertise in financial services technologies".

My impression is that the short-sellers were right when they said it was primarily a low-margin consultancy business. The operating margin is less than 10%.

But short-sellers generally need more than a poor-quality business and an overvaluation. They need a catalyst for share price destruction, too. The publication of a "short dossier" might be enough, but it might not be.

The basic facts are that FD has reported positive net income year in and year out. It has paid a rising dividend stream, and hasn't diluted shareholders much over the last five years.

Net debt is now at a more challenging £60 million, following the acquisition of the "world-leading database technology" division.  Here is its website.

And this is what the company has to say about its increased debt load:

While the Group is comfortable operating at this level of indebtedness, it is expected that the current level of net debt represents the peak and should reduce in future periods, driven by operating cash flow, subject to other strategic activities that may be undertaken in future periods.

My view

I don't feel qualified to judge whether this company has any competitive advantage in its field, but I do lean towards the bearish position that it is heavy in consulting activities which are unlikely to make for a wonderful investment.

On the other hand, the bear thesis that shareholders were going to get diluted hasn't happened yet, and it might not happen if the acquired business performs as expected. So I wouldn't want to be short this one, either.

Stocko doesn't like it, calling it a "Falling Star" (high quality but low on momentum and value).




UP Global Sourcing Holdings (LON:UPGS)

  • Share price: 84.2p (+9%)
  • No. of shares: 82 million
  • Market cap: £69 million

Final Results

Ultimate Products, the owner, manager, designer and developer of an extensive range of value-focused consumer goods brands, announces its full year results for the year ended 31 July 2019. 

This is another one we've discussed before, and generally singing off the same hymn sheet: UPGS manages consumer brands which may have some pricing power, but are unlikely to justify or to command very high earnings multiples, relative to premium brands.

Performance in FY July 2019 is impressive:

  • Revenues are up >40% (within which international revenues have doubled).
  • PBT  up 51% to £8.2 million
  • Dividend up 50% to 4.085p

And the current year is going ok:

The market conditions for general merchandise remain challenging in the UK and Ultimate Products, like many others, is faced with an uncertain environment for consumers, retailers and suppliers. However, current trading is in line with expectations and the FY 20 order book is moderately ahead of this time last year. Therefore, despite the wider market uncertainty, we remain confident in the future prospects of Ultimate Products."

My view

I don't see any need to look into this in further detail today. If you want to get a better idea of where the sales are coming from, you can see the product websites for the main revenue contributors:

I reckon it is fairly valued around current levels - the cheap earnings multiple prices in the risks and gives investors the chance to be richly rewarded, if the brands can sustain their value and the international logistics continue to run smoothly.




Filta Group (LON:FLTA)

  • Share price: 150p (-22%)
  • No. of shares: 29 million
  • Market cap: £44 million

Trading Update

This RNS starts out fine, but takes a turn for the worse in the fourth paragraph. Brace yourselves:

We remain confident of fully realising the planned efficiencies in FOG (fats, oils and grease) in 2020 and delivering against our expectations for that financial year, but progress in the second half of 2019 has been slower than was, at first, anticipated. It has been necessary to divert resource to catch up on an order backlog in our FOG businesses and a small amount of installation work, which had been expected in the fourth quarter, has been delayed into 2020.

Additionally, over the last 3 months we have invested in additional personnel to maximise the opportunities in the UK. 

Hmm. Isn't an order backlog usually a good thing? Could this be a "good" profit warning, if it signals strong demand? The trading update later states that the backlog has been eliminated and that the company's planned cost savings are on track.

The "small amount" of delayed installation work, and the additional personnel, don't sound like the end of the world, either.

Forecasts

  • FY 2019 adjusted EBITDA is now expected to come in at just £3.3 million (previous forecast £4.5 million).
  • FY 2019 Adjusted EPS is now only forecast to be 3.3p, versus 9.2p last year and the previous forecast of 8p. The research note by Cenkos says that a "temporarilty high tax rate" is responsible for this.
  • FY 2020 forecasts are unchanged.

My view

I think investors are right to be unnerved by the extent to which FY 2019 forecasts have been slashed, so a c. 20% fall in the share price today might be a fair reaction. If 2020 expectations can be delivered, as promised, then it's a nice buying opportunity, but how much faith can we have in that?




Castleton Technology (LON:CTP)

  • Share price: 73.5p (+17%)
  • No. of shares: 82 million
  • Market cap: £60 million

Half-year Report

This is still in my "too difficult" tray, but having covered it a few times before, I want to acknowledge the positive outlook statement in this H1 report:

The Company is confident that revenue, EBITDA and cash generation will show a material improvement in the second half of the year.

It has been transitioning away from one-off revenues and trying to build its higher-quality recurring revenues.

H1 recurring revenues did indeed increase compared to the prior year (from £7 million to £7.6 million), but one-off revenues were poor, as expected.

In H2 so far, Castleton has been chosen by the National Housing Federation as "the preferred supplier for Housing Management Solutions".

I continue to maintain a balanced view on this one.



Honourable mention: Finally, I note that GAN (LON:GAN) issued an "ahead of expectations" trading update (link) and said that the outlook for 2019 remains "highly positive". Its revenues in 2019 will be more than double the revenues in 2018.

It has great exposure to the burgeoning US online gambling space, but it's in the B2B category which I find more difficult to analyse. Could be worth a look.




Out of time for today, thanks everyone!

Graham


Disclaimer

This is not financial advice. Our content is intended to be used and must be used for information and education purposes only. Please read our disclaimer and terms and conditions to understand our obligations.

40 comments


Avatar for gus 1065

Rather than clog up today‘s SCVR, this seemed a more pertinent place to post a link to 888 Holdings (LON:888) proposed acquisition of William Hills’ non US businesses. It’s a big acquisition, more than doubling the size of 888’s current franchise so characterised as a reverse takeover.

https://www.investegate.co.uk/...

Initially being funded by underwritten debt, a future share issue of about £500m is proposed “in due course”. 888 Holdings (LON:888) are paying 9.2x EBITDA (pre synergies expected to take this down to 6.8x) off the back of their own current PE of about 19x so earnings enhancing. At face value looks a good fit - the prey becomes a predator as 888 was one of my expected bid candidates - but even at this larger size it just makes it potentially even more attractive to the private equity boys in due course. I would expect the competition authorities to call this one in for review.

Gus.

2
Avatar for abtan

888 Holdings (LON:888) (I hold)

Thanks Gus,

As a holder I am stunned that they were able to raise £2b of debt given their current £1.5b Market Cap.

I've never been a fan of debt in general, so a part of me remains wary of the size of the deal. Even a 5% interest rate will add £100m in costs per year...which is pretty much what the current business makes right now.

I'm not bothered about the dividend and would rather they just slashed it in order to prioritise deleveraging; I'm surprised by their commitment today to continue with the current dividend policy.

I also wonder if the Board is going to be able to cope with all the avenues of growth it's pursuing right now. 3 big challenges come to mind:

  1. Expansion in the US with Sports Illustrated, which launched this week;
  2. the "re-launch" in Germany, as though it's a new market;
  3. Today's acquisition (which includes a significant offline business.)

That's a lot to focus on.

---

The above concerns aside, 888 Holdings (LON:888) did need to do something drastic if it was to have any chance of joining the big players and accelerating its growth plans.

There have been so many consolidations in recent years in this sector too, and without any firms showing an interest in buying 888 Holdings (LON:888) itself as far as I know, so I note the irony that the acquisition includes Mr Green, which I previously held and was bought by WHI back in 2019.

---

I don't see a reason to sell my position right now, but I'm keen to see the final terms of the deal, particularly the cost of the whopping big loans being taken out. Looking 5 years out, if that debt can indeed be paid down as planned, this could look like a very good deal.

A

1
Avatar for gus 1065

Hi abtan.

Yes it’s a big chunk to bite off.  I’m quite sanguine about the debt.  Given the nature of the bank group (short term investment banks rather than providers of long term capital) they will want this refinanced as soon as possible - probably through a combination of new equity (about 20-25% of current share count should get the £500m), longer term syndicated bank debt and possibly some corporate bonds. With a combined pro rata EBITDA of about £340m there’s plenty of headroom to service/pay down the debt in a reasonable timeframe provided they keep the business performing.

I suspect the big shareholders are already onside for the new equity to be issued and that the use of acquisition finance debt is to give certainty of funding for a deal that may be picked apart/delayed due to a review by the competition authorities without issuing new shares at the onset. My main concern, other than execution risk of digesting such a big spread of new businesses, is the background threat of some form of regulatory clampdown on the business in one or more of their jurisdictions could wallop the projections. Not without material risk but as you say five years from now it could well look like a great deal when seen in the rear view mirror.

Gus.

1
Avatar for jwebster

Zytronic (LON:ZYT)

Manufacturer of large format touch screens and associated control electronics.

Dividend yield of 11.5% ! Clearly a value trap. Or a beaten down small cap ? Worth a look.

Market cap is small at 32m but they have net cash of 12.1m which is positive. Last year ZYT generated 4.8m in operating cash and spent 3.7m on dividends so the dividend cover was good, especially given the net cash in the bank as a buffer.

Moving on to the bad news reported at the half year.

Firstly, revenue from gaming dropped from 4.2m to 3.1m. Secondly, product lines with higher margin falling away ".... the number of larger panels dropped by 35%... " leading to a reduction in gross margin from 39.6% to 34.7%. Outlook negative “…there are several projects that should improve performance as they come to fruition, at this stage the Board is taking a cautious and conservative view on an increase in activity levels from the Gaming sector in the second half.”

Looking at the revenue by segment for the half year versus 2018 half year.

Gaming         3.1 <- 4.2
Financial etc 5.1 <- 4.6
Other            1.3 <- 1.8
Total             9.5 <- 10.6

Could have done with some commentary on the ‘Other’ category as well. They also burned through 2.6m in cash with a fairly heavy 1.7m change in working capital. Of this, inventories grew by 0.9m, possibly due to the lower sales.

While revenue above reduced 1.1m cost of sales only reduced by 0.23m and admin only 0.05m thus PBT reduced 0.8m from 2.2m to 1.4m

So, if costs remain inflexible, a further reduction in revenue of 1.9m or so puts them nearly at a loss.

I do wonder why this company manages to exist given touch screens are dominated by big players in China, Japan and Korea. I suppose around 20m in annual revenues is so small ZYT can play a niche. They do say they have a patent on the multi-touch tech but my concern is the big players spend billions on R&D and lead the market. I think these small firms actually copy existing tech outside of patents and customise it for specific customer demands.

One to watch for the second half results, their revenue is too uncertain for me at this point.

6
Avatar for Tortoise investor

Hi Graham,

I think you might be giving all-party groups (APPGs) too much credibility when you say "They can't pass legislation, but they can make proposals, and their proposals tend to have a good chance of success (since they have cross-party support)."

APPGs are pretty far down the pecking order in the hierarchy of influence in Westminster. They vary in quality and influence, but tend to just have a couple of active MPs who convince other MPs to add their names to the official register of the group just to make the numbers to set the group up. In addition, they tend to be fronts for other causes and organisations who run the secretariat and fund the group (e.g. see here)

I think your statement might be better applied to Select Committees perhaps - but even then I am not sure their proposals have a good chance of success.

(For background I work in political lobbying and public relations).

10
Avatar for Luthrin

SCS (LON:SCS)

Parlour Product Holdings (PPH), an affiliate of US buyout specialist Sun Capital Partners, announced after market close that it intends to sell at least 5.38m shares in SCS Group through a placing. This represents approximately 13.4% of the company's current issued share capital (one third of PPH's holding). PPH bought SCS out of administration in 2008 and held it privately until it was floated again in 2015.

SCS Group subsequently announced its intention to potentially participate in the placing using its current buyback authority. The company says it will limit its participation to 4.99% of its share capital. Any shares purchased will be cancelled.

1
Avatar for mojomogoz

Luthrin

I wonder how the placing of Parlour/Sun Capital shares will go. Altogether Sun holds just short of 50% (I think). In the past SCS (LON:SCS) has bought a few percent off of Sun and placed in some employee incentive/retirement sort of thing (from memory).

I think SCS is an amazingly run business and presents good value....however, I sold out on the recent results. They were fine but illustrated that top line growth could be at risk. IMO the value and cash plus cashflow cover this quite well in a rational valuation sense. But I don't think the market is rational to it. The way it could have got some rationality applied was by being more active in managing the excess cash of the company. They should have instituted an active share buy back once the wheels came of the great thing they did with House of Fraser. Really unlucky that didn't work out due to bigger HoF probs but they then had a look at sofa.com (?) but backed away and let Mike Ashley have....phew as its a small capital hungry business that would require time, mgt focus and cash to make it work and it would be at risk of not working well given its outside of their C2DE demographic.

So the last results was the final straw for me as I felt they were leaving themselves hostage to fortune (market conditions, top line, sentiment, etc whatever) when they could be driving the future more and make eps go up handsomely for several years with buybacks irrespective of environment.

Sun obviously are a bit edgy. They did everything right really with SCS but they have not got the exit they want. Now it appears they are pushing the issue. I suspect there has been some tension and that SCS want to keep their cash to wait for opportunities to acquire. They 5% buyback from SCS is back foot defensive. I suspect that the share price could go down on this or become very weak on any weak trading update (I'm not forecasting that but I think their last results hinted at it)

1
Avatar for rmillaree

I have a theory, which I admit I haven't tested rigorously, that when betting on a sporting event that can only have a binary outcome (win/lose only, not win/lose/draw) one just might over time get a small edge by always betting against the English/British competitor.

My theory is that one should never bet on Scotland to win at anything (for obvious reasons).

I think the problem with any theory is that there are bods with money who pore over the stats - so if there was an edge for betting against English teams and that was backed up by historical results one would expect the smart big money to be going for that exact option up to the point the margin did not exist due to the odds adjustment to take account of those bets.

4
Avatar for cic

"....20% of online gamblers are net winners." What does this mean? The word "net"implies that this is over a number of gambles, so how many. If the probability of being a net winner on 2 gambles is 20% the probability being a winner on a single punt is around 44 %. At the same odds the probabilty of being a net winner after 10 gambles starts to be pretty small, and after 100 gambles infinitesimal. Without information on the time period, or average number of gambles the figure is completely meaningless. I don't believe it!

2
Avatar for rmillaree

I don't understand this. The "edge" with any gambling product is negative which should mean that around 0% of gamblers are net winners (except over short time periods.)


It's actually not that hard to beat the bookies -  if one shops around to find best value and is selective on ones markets and one takes advantage of the reasonably generous special offers available until you are blacklisted (all so easy to be blacklisted) its a pretty easy thing to end up with a positive edge or no real material edge for the bookie. Then add in the arbitrage bettors who can't lose providing they make sufficient volume of bets and that's a reasonable pool of bods before you get to the lucky so and so's in life (all Leicester City fans brave enough to bet on their team to win the league :)) 


2
Avatar for Gromley

It does all depend on what we mean by 'gamblers', if  we are talking about pure games of chance, like roulette or slots then I would agree over a long enough period of time everyone loses.

However any game that has a degree of 'skill' it is possible to get an edge, whether or not it can be sufficient to overcome in the embedded house cut is another matter.

In my student days I work for a turf accountant and through reading up and observations, moving on to extensive analysis of results databases; i came up with a few reliable systematic approaches that worked reliably. I might go back at some stage and see if they still work.

Despite the quite healthy edge, the relative rarity of the opportunities caused me to drop this in the end. To make meaningful money I would have had to stake substantial sums (and therefore to have a very much more substantial 'bank'). Firstly this made the ROCE no too impressive, but would also create an elevated risk of my 'edge' being arbitraged away.

The approach, and as ever also the mistakes,  however did teach me quite a lot that I also find useful in the stock market.



4
Avatar for Blissgull

rmillaree,

Absolutely. Beating "the odds" at the bookies is easy. The problem for successful gamblers is account restrictions.

It amazes me that people think they can profit in the financial markets by looking at a few charts, when they are up against huge money, institutions employing some of the world's best mathematicians and most sophisticated software and supercomputers, but think you cannot beat the bookies.

Every day bookmakers have to set odds on events they know nothing about, often involving animals they have never heard of and which may have never raced before. t

Simply taking bookmakers promotions can be lucrative until they restrict you. The best promotion of course is the pair of underpants which Paddy Power post to their punters after a few bets.

1
Avatar for abtan

Best Of The Best (LON:BOTB)

I'm struggling to understand the 2020 revenue forecasts in the Stock Report, and also why this share appears to be so cheap.

REVENUE

2018: £12.9m
2019: £14.8m
2020e: £15.5m


What the above numbers mask is the rapid increase in online revenue because of the rapid drop in physical location revenue (from £2.1m in 2017-2018 to essentially nothing today).

Year-on year Online revenue growth over the last 2 years is as follows:
2017 --> 2018 = +30% (£8.4m --> £10.9m)
2018 --> 2019 = +32% (£10.9m --> £14.4m)

Assuming another 30% increase gives 2020 revenue of £18.9m

Even if growth is more pedestrian at 25%, 2020 revenue will = £17.4m

Both of these scenarios are significantly ahead of the £15.5m forecast (which assumes +8% YOY online growth) and I'm not entirely sure why there is such a big difference.


COSTS

A few other assumptions:
- Costs of Sale should not really move (the cost of giving away 1 car per week remains the same, irrespective of the number of tickets sold), though I appreciate it might be a little higher given the new non-car prizes now offered each week. My estimate  = £5m

- Remote Gambling Duty is a relatively small % of revenues (it was £0.7m in 2017-18 from revenues of £12.9m, ie c5% of revenues) and I imagine this proportion will remain relatively constant, or maybe a little higher after the tax increase that came in last year. My estimate = £1.9m

- Marketing by my estimates was around £2.3m in 2018-19 and I have assumed an increase of £0.5m this year to £2.8m. My estimate = £2.8m

- Admin to increase by 2-3%. My estimate = £4.0m


EARNINGS SUMMARY 2019-2020

Total Revenue = £18.9m

Total Costs = £13.7m

PBT = £5.2m

NB: Finncap put out an update this morning forecasting PBT of £2.2m for 2019-20. That's a big difference and I'm not sure what I am missing?


VALUATION

A market cap of £27m for a company making PBT of >£5m and lots of cash seems far too low. 

One would hope that a weekly spot the ball competition would not be in the firing line of regulatory changes as from a social perspective, I can't imagine there being much risk of problem gambling and from a financial perspective HMRC have just gone after BOTB regarding VAT and have already increased RGD.

Having said that it would certainly be interesting to see whether Best Of The Best (LON:BOTB) has any "high rollers" on its books. Paul if you're reading, perhaps you can ask management when you speak with them next?

Happy holder for now

A


4
Avatar for Nick Ray
around 20% of online gamblers are net winners. This is not much worse than spread bet/CFD companies.

I don't understand this. The "edge" with any gambling product is negative which should mean that around 0% of gamblers are net winners (except over short time periods.)

By contrast, the "edge" when trading in the stock market is not fixed to be negative. In fact if we take the achievable edge to be the return of the market index then it is generally positive.

Now I can understand that many clients of spreadbet companies are trying to play the volatility and probably are manufacturing a negative edge for themselves, which explains why so few are net winners. But what I can't understand is how anyone at all is manufacturing a positive edge when gambling.

3
Avatar for Graham Neary

A few years ago, I spent some time betting on high-probability and unpopular outcomes on Betfair, and managed to grind out a small profit. The opportunity wasn't large enough to make any proper money, but it was there. A combination of dumb luck by some gamblers plus that sort of strategy pursued by others could, in my opinion, produce the finding you've quoted.

3
Avatar for Metatron

With respect whatever 'the 'edge' sports betting companies have there have always punters who have been able to beat them - the problem has always been getting the bets on.
If you doubt sports betting punters can be winners I suggest do some research on the Racing Post or At The Races top tipsters who have a large following - the reason why is that year after year their tips deliver if every tip is backed at the odds tipped at an overall significant profit.The catch is that bookmakers mark down the odds usually very quickly after the tips are made public.
Possibly the best market for making profits is just coming up consistuency betting in general elections .Punters who live in constituencies/regions far away from odds compilers living in London have the edge.
Note in the 2017 and 1997 elections spread betting punters who laid Tory seats made a fortune.Currently Tory seats are pitched at 310-315 - could lightning strike thrice?

2
Avatar for andrewdb

Absolutely.
Politics.
got 23-1 odds for lab making the next majority govt, now I know lab are not likely to win, but they are better odds than 23-1 - and you can close out early on betfair exchange.
same for brexit and trump - made a bit on those and then lost most of my gains on the 2017 election by following groupthink.

On how _anyone_ makes money gambling, yes, in the long term the probability of ruin -> 1
but most people do not gamble forever.
We ought to note that the return of the market index can be negative over decades - (adjusted for inflation) prices were lower in 1849 than in 1720; were lower in 1949 than in 1871; and were lower in 1989 than in 1968 (h/t chris dillow for that sentence)


1
Avatar for MiserableJacktPotato

I’m no expert in how the figures break down, but over and above the reasons given for sports betting by others - a significant amount of the money gambled is on skill based games such as the various forms of poker and in my experience the it’s same user names that usually have large pots that they’ve won.

0
Avatar for robinleggate

All this trouble for the gaming industry might explain the real weakness of Zytronic at the moment. Zytronic (LON:ZYT) makes screens for the gaming sector among other sectors and order intake especially for the larger screens has been low. Current Yield over 12%!

6
Avatar for Chris Archer

888 Holdings (LON:888) I sold my entire position in 888 today. Gambling addiction is getting serious press attention of late and this is forcing the law makers to take notice. The genie is out of the bottle now and I strongly suspect we will see ever increasing regulation in this space. Yesterdays parliamentary report singled out online casinos. This is particularly bad news for 888. They have arguably the best online casino in the industry which makes up a very large chunk of their overall revenues. I continue to think 888 is an excellent business. The opportunity of expanding into the USA is extremely exciting. However, with the ever increasing likelihood of further regulation the risk v reward is just not there anymore.

9
Avatar for Graham Neary

Can't blame you golfnut, I might be out too after further reflection. Better luck with whatever you do with the proceeds!

G

2
Avatar for qvg

Golfnut, me too

0
Avatar for Nothingventured

I read an interesting piec on how the US gaming/hgambling market works and its quite different to here in the UK; large venues, bars, food, lots of razmataz, screen everyehere and its possible to bet on anything in an event.

0
Avatar for gary3980

Hi Graham, Gan (LON:GAN) may be of interest if looking at the gambling sector. Sure you have covered before, is focused primarily on the US where sports betting is becoming a hot topic/rolling out at quite a pace. Interesting update from them this morning with substantial revenue increase from increased rollout across states, and the US football season now underway. Very positive outlook commentary too (as you'd expect). Disclosure - I hold.

2
Avatar for Graham Neary

Thanks psin and gary, I have indeed covered GAN (LON:GAN) before. I find it more difficult to analyse but agree that it is worth a look. Will check it again. Many thanks! G

2
Avatar for Gostevie

I have a theory, which I admit I haven't tested rigorously, that when betting on a sporting event that can only have a binary outcome (win/lose only, not win/lose/draw) one just might over time get a small edge by always betting against the English/British competitor. My reasoning is that some people will back the home competitor out of sentiment, lowering his/her/their odds below their 'natural 'level, with a corresponding increase in the opposition's odds. That said, any edge that this proffers is probably so small as to make it not worth the effort.

2
Avatar for shipoffrogs

Yes, very apparent with England and rugby.

1
Avatar for psin

Re Gambling shares. Look at £GAN. Provides software and heavily invested in USA.

3
Avatar for Nothingventured

I really think US exposure is the way to go here; this is a market that's opening up rather than one thats closing.

1
Avatar for Nothingventured

However, re GAN specifically, the rating is now astronomic and I think anyone who hasn't invested has probably missed the boat.

1
Avatar for homebrewruss

Is the GAN rating that astromic though? They will should do £6m + EBITDA for this year and have £9m cash plus the US rollout is only just getting going.
Plenty more to come imv especially with the US listing next year.

3
Avatar for Snoo

Interesting report there on t' gambling.

TBH I don't think much of what they are saying there should come in, perhaps I am biased. For sure there are addicts around, but imagine if pubs and shops decided only to serve a maximum of 2 drinks to people because a minority of people had got themselves addicted and ruined their lives. It might save some people, but the determined would know getting around it is easy.

IMO addicts are addicted to the dopamine fix, not the underlying games (although the fact that it is fast and quick undoubtedly helps). It seems slightly silly to cap gambling on slots and roulette (which return 95%+ in most instances) to £2, yet a punter could stake almost unlimited amounts on betting, which come with far better over-rounds. In the cases of the new products such as 'cash-out' and 'make your bet' markets the edges are tremendous.

There are also degenerates who gamble on stocks, and their related instruments like CFD's, it is possible to do some real harm despite the new regulations.... imagine government bringing in rules for everyone... it would be counter-productive.

12
Avatar for andrea34

"Degenerates"? I think you need to read what you've typed out before hitting the 'submit' button, even if elsewhere you do make some valid points.

-5
Avatar for john2

I suspect that he was being humorous, Andrea.

14
Avatar for mojomogoz

For the record. I am 100% fine with the term 'degenerates' being used even if I don't think its the right interpretation. Get a grip people!

18
Avatar for Trident

UP Global Sourcing Holdings (LON:UPGS)

Year-end results released

Reporting good uplifts in revenues, EBITDA, profit before tax, and dividends.

Says market year ahead still challenging, but broadly confident.

Shares up 7-8% as we speak.

6
Avatar for muzmanoz

This part of today's report caught my eye

"During Q1 FY 20, we successfully launched our offer in Germany on a major online platform there and now have the template for a pan-European roll-out which we plan to execute during the rest of FY 20 utilising third-party logistics. This is an exciting new development for the business and we will be investing in additional headcount to facilitate this."

2
Avatar for MrContrarian

My morning smallcap tweet:

GAN (LON:GAN), Nanoco (LON:NANO), Best Of The Best (LON:BOTB), Topps Tiles (LON:TPT), Sabien Technology (LON:SNT), Watkin Jones (LON:WJG), Wilmington (LON:WIL), Filta Group (LON:FLTA), ULS Technology (LON:ULS), Filta Group (LON:FLTA)

GAN (GAN) guides FY rev up over 100% vs F/C 61%.
Nanoco (NANO) cash-strapped co enters strategic review including preliminary discussions with certain parties about a potential sale of the Company. Also reviewing other sources of funding.
Best Of The Best (BOTB) H1 trading: pretax tracking ahead of market expectations.
Topps Tiles (TPT) CEO leaving end Nov, succeeded by CFO. He is thanked.
Sabien Technology (SNT) founder & CEO scarpers, immediate effect. He is thanked. Will conduct a business review.
Filta (FLTA)H2 adj EBITDA likely to be flat. Blames delays and extra costs.

In line: Watkin Jones (LON:WJG), Wilmington (LON:WIL), ULS Technology (LON:ULS)

27
Avatar for Gromley

I have had Filta Group (LON:FLTA) on my watch list for a little while now (since the share price fell on the back of their AGM statement in June).

With the share price in early October up more than 50% on the September lows, I had begun to think of this as one that got away. (I no longer let such things bother me, there are plenty more fish in the sea).

I didn’t get to read today’s update until after the market had opened and I a began to read I was thoroughly puzzled by the market reaction.  You have to read through quite a lot about how well everything is going and is on plan until you finally get to the kicker.

the Board now believes that the Group's adjusted EBITDA* for the second half of 2019 is likely to be similar to that reported for the first half of the year.

 Adjusted EBITDA in H1 was £1.72m resulting in Profit after tax of £0.36m, so if we assume there are no further acquisition costs or share based payments in H2 £1.72m will result in PAT of £0.72m, so £1.08m for the  full year.

Assuming this is a like for like comparison that looks like a very chunky miss against the forecast shown on Stocko of £1.8m.

The is a decent (sponsored)  research note out this morning from Harman and they imply that will be further H2 exceptionals and a higher tax charge so have post tax earnings at virtually zero.

The RNS does detail the reasons for the miss and they are credible, they also explain why they remain positive for 2020 (and Hardman echo this).

It all seems very complacent to me and this is not the first time.

The June AGM statement I mentioned above started with three paragraphs of positivity only to finally arrive at  :

As a result of the revenue and margin improvements targeted through the integration of Watbio, we expect that revenue and profits will be skewed slightly more than is usual towards the second half, and that the out-turn for the full year will be in line with market expectations.

As H2 weighting statements go, that one seems fairly benign. However, I guess one has to ask if that was always the expectation, why did they not tell us until the half year?

The outlook statement in the interim results only two months ago, gave no hint whatsoever of any H2 issues.

For me therefore this is a huge question mark around management credibility. I will continue to watch this, but only out of interest I cannot see any prospect of me buying it in the foreseeable future.

The share price is now skirting around the September lows, before  the interim results, but surely it deserves to be much lower?

15
Avatar for Andrew niven

i think the business model for this company is fragile to say the least and i also have serious concerns regarding management. I think this is a very high risk share and not for the faint hearted

0
Get the free newsletter