Gvc Share Discussion Threads

[woodhawk] 29/4/2018 20:13

coxsmn,

I sold my large stake in GVC a few months back - I've just had short term trades here since.

No, VRS is Festario, not me - I have a tiny stake for fun! I've mainly been in GSK, HGM, IMB, CARD, SSE, DLG and L&G - all of which have done very for me, and - unfortunately - Micro Focus on which I've taken a big hit (tho' recovering somewhat since). Surprisingly, I've also done well trading WPP so far, but anything could happen there tomorrow morning!

[coxsmn] 29/4/2018 20:10

Srp, i agree and also the £2 scenario would mean gvc get lads for the minimum cost.

[srpactive] 29/4/2018 19:55

If one fobt door closes, I am sure the bookies will
think of another door to open to prize the money from
the gamblers pockets, dyor.

active

[coxsmn] 29/4/2018 19:45

Wood, i thought you'd already sold gvc and bought vrs?

[nurdin] 29/4/2018 18:08

FWIW Edisons forecast £743m EBITDA at £20 limit which drops to £665m at £2

[woodhawk] 29/4/2018 16:46

loganair, you may well be right, but I simply don't need to take the risk - there are, in my view, less risky options available to me which may be as - or more - rewarding than a continued investment in GVC at this time. I may be wrong, but I have to back my own judgement.

[woozle1] 29/4/2018 15:12

The point of the structure of the LCL deal was to immunise GVC from the FOBT review by issuing CVRs; which I'm assuming will be worth very little.
w1

[loganair] 29/4/2018 15:08

Wood - what I read is that the 'point of consumption' tax will only need to rise from 15% to 19% to cover any of the Treusury's loss in taxes from FBOT's.

And actually it may not cost the treasury as much as they say it is going to, because less will need to be spent on gambling addiction and counseling of the people who currently play these machines and will reduce the amount of FOBT-related crime and violence by those who are trying to get money to play these machines.

I can not see how it will hit GVC's Ebitda my 18%, considering Ladbrokes had the biggest percentage of their business from on-line out of any of the bricks and mortar betting companies.

[woodhawk] 29/4/2018 14:45

We can't agree on everything, Gary! GVC have excellent management and I've done very well from my holdings over the past 3 years. Good luck to all those who are sticking with it.

[garycook] 29/4/2018 14:30

W,All good companies,of which I also own.Sad to see you sell GVC.I believe there is more growth to go,especially in the 2H,after the World Cup profits.

[woodhawk] 29/4/2018 14:20

Aside from the issue of the FOBT limit itself, I consider THIS the more worrying aspect:



"A cut in the FOBT staking limit to £2 would shrink William Hill’s [earnings] Ebitda by 25%, GVC’s by 18%, and Paddy Power-Betfair’s by 3%,” said Davy analyst David Jennings, who also warned investors may start to wonder whether changes to the UK’s existing point-of-consumption tax could also be on the cards.

“Were the point-of-consumption tax on gaming products to be increased to 25%, the impact would be 6% on William Hill, 5% on GVC, and 4% on Paddy Power-Betfair,” said Mr Jennings."

Personally, like Festario, I think there is better potential elsewehere at the moment. I've taken a small profit from the turmoil last week and am no longer a holder (again). I shall continue to monitor with interest. In the meantime IMB, HGM, CARD, SSE and DLG have all done me proud of late - great divis at low prices!

[loganair] 29/4/2018 13:56

coxs - I understand the the amounts being looked at are £2, £20, £30 and £50, therefore it seems to me the only two figures in the running are either £2 or £20.

The average amount spend by a punter on a FBOT is just £8.71 and only somewhere around 2% of punters bet £50 or more per spin.

[festario] 29/4/2018 13:51

As I've said before, anything less than £50 a spin makes the machines obsolete.Even £50 would reduce usage by 90%, because a gambler needs to chase what he's lost.... by taking this measure, he can't.It's the debt that GVC now has which troubles me, that and the pile of Ladbroke issues that need wading through.The liabilities side of the balance sheet won't look as healthy as in the past, nor will the dividend which is the main problem for all of us.I'll be back in GVC, but only when some of the grunt work is finished, and the picture is clearer.

[coxsmn] 29/4/2018 11:52

A change from £100 to £10 would still represent a 90% reduction.

[coxsmn] 28/4/2018 07:16

Trent, i agree this is most likely the case.

[trentendboy] 28/4/2018 06:26

Indeed. I suspect GVC would not be too unhappy with 2 quid.The TO becomes cheaper and what the really wanted was the online and brand name.GVC have never wanted a real estate position.They know what they are doing

[coxsmn] 27/4/2018 18:00

I don't like all the fake news and newspaper speculation portrayed as fact. We already know the Lads purchase price is scaled according to the fob outcome and to cover a worst case £2 scenario. Lets wait and see what the goverment decide but one thing is for sure, £2 would mean a lot of high street shop closures and job losses, it would mean the government is only listening to the voices of anti-gambling campaigners.
The recommendation from the 6 month long gambling review was £30 or less so a fair and balanced outcome would give some middle ground, say £10-£20.

[loganair] 27/4/2018 10:24

A week’s a long time in politics, but it only took the Treasury a day to change course. On Monday, there was a proposed “backroom deal” between the Chancellor and the bookies over the maximum stake on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (FOBTs), by Tuesday the Treasury said it wouldn’t stand in the way of the government’s decision if it favoured a reduction to £2 a spin.

Treasury should take into account the impact of government policy on the economy as a whole, and the subsequent revenue impact, rather than the tax derived from a specific sector in isolation. Landman Economics has found that for every £1 billion lost on FOBTs, a net of 16,500 jobs are lost in the wider economy, due to the machines being a labour unintensive form of consumer spending. If the stake is reduced to £2 a spin, a proportion of FOBT revenue will switch to over the counter betting, a less harmful and more labour intensive activity. While the number of FOBTs, and the yield they generate, has gone up in recent years - now accounting for more than half of betting shop profits - the number of people employed by the bookmakers has gone down, with operators adopting the risky policy of lone working.

FOBTs are a job destroyer both within and outside the betting industry, while the bookmakers pressure their staff to push customers in their shops online, where the operators pay 15% “point of consumption” tax, which applies to where the consumer is rather than the offshore operator. There are rumours that the Treasury will seek to recoup any gambling related revenue it loses out on from a FOBT clampdown by raising duty on online gambling. Analysts Goodbody estimate the shortfall to Treasury from gambling taxes will be about £194m if there’s no transfer to other gambling activities, and this could be made up by increasing online gambling “point of consumption” tax from 15% to 19%.

With a majority of MPs in the House of Commons backing £2 a spin, including 23 Conservative MPs, the Labour Party and the Lib Dems, most SNP MPs and some DUP MPs on the record as backing the Campaign’s objective, and with the government still obliged to “try to reach agreement” with the 93 councils demanding £2 a spin under the Sustainable Communities Act, it feels as though the Campaign is reaching the final furlong.

[woodhawk] 26/4/2018 17:30

oniabsta,

My pleasure - glad you've done well with it. Was surprised at the strength of that takeoff!! Great divi too - nearly 8% if you bought anywhere near the bottom.

Did you get into HGM as well? Good news this morning - recovered all the divi on ex-d day and more besides! I'm having a great run at the moment. Just need GFRD to take off now!!

[commiesy] 26/4/2018 17:01

Bloomberg Businessweek had a piece on sports betting in the US in general and william hills strategy in the April 16 issue. Talks about history of and the ongoing PASPA tussle. FYI for anyone interested, don't have a link, headline was 'a big bet on sport betting'

[festario] 26/4/2018 12:32

I wish I was in a position to buy back in here at 905pGVC has always bounced back from any share price setback.I'm fully committed over on VRS.I was hoping to have been back here for 60k shares by now, but no, you know what AIM is like.

[oniabsta] 26/4/2018 11:17

Woodhawk - Have to thank you for IMB. I too go for high yield shs. Loaded up very quickly on this one & it has rocketed

[loganair] 25/4/2018 23:21

Within the next 70 days, the U.S. Supreme Court will issue a ruling on Murphy v. NCAA, the state of New Jersey’s challenge to the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA). The law, which largely outlawed sports betting outside of Nevada, has failed to offer sport or consumer protection. Rather, PASPA restricts state and federal economic benefits, exhausts law enforcement resources and perpetuates a thriving illegal sports betting market in the United States that it is estimated to be in excess of $150 billion annually.