Gvc Share Discussion Threads

[festario] 15/12/2016 13:15

JFishy, more than any other listed company, I think you CAN rely upon the RNS's of GVC. I have been badly burned on other companies where that isn't true.But, what I'm saying is, GVC investor relations are excellent at giving more detail and commentary on request.I use them when I need clarity on a certain matter, as I did recently with Slippery's libellous claims.

[jfishy55] 15/12/2016 13:07

Festario,

"1, The assumed date for GVC taking on BWIN, for simplistic accounting purposes, which differs to the actual."

I'm not sure how this applies to NGR?

"2, because I expect GVC in Q4 to exceed the pro forma prediction, which they very often do."

To save me going through old RNS', can you provide me with the pro forma numbers & the actual numbers that followed so as to prove this point?

I did a quick check through my notes and pro forma Q4-14 was 660k but the actual figures came in significantly lower at 641k which is the opposite to your argument. Perhaps this was a one off? Perhaps you can supply the numbers to show this?

"Please also realise that Q2 and Q3 this year had Euro Football championships and Olympic Games included."

Yet sports NGR declined from Q2 to Q3 despite there being championships. Sports NGR (all from RNS' of course):
Q4-15 860
Q1-16 856
Q2-16 965
Q3-16 960

I agree that major events (particularly those that traditionally attract gamblers) can change the shape of the NGR to some extent. However, there are various types of championships going on all the time so I'm not convinced it makes all that much difference. That said, the Football World Cup in 2014 (revenue for Q3-14) saw an increase in sports NGR that has higher than my expected increase followed by a decline for Q4 which certainly suggests that the Football World Cup at least makes a difference so you may have a point.

I don't suppose you have any figures for other championships?

"I think you'll find that if you ask GVC investor relations for clarification and explanation"

You don't think I should rely on the RNS releases?

[srpactive] 15/12/2016 12:59

The last time we tickled just through the 200dma,
we moved up 25% very soon after, take a look at
the chart.
So 5%, is just the start, imho.

dyor

Investors must make their own choices and not based
on BB comments.

regards

active

[velod] 15/12/2016 12:41

Can't recall who it was who posted of perhaps seeing 650p close by end of today? Well it's right in sight now! Tiny bit of intraday-only resistance at 651p but deal with that firmly and it could be - by how much higher than 650p might it close? Just look at that single day % gain right now; up 5%+ !!! As good a guarantee as it's possible to make that tomorrow will also be a bullish day but anybody's guess by just how much.

[jfishy55] 15/12/2016 12:40

"It is better to challenge his numbers with your own maths rather then dismissing him completely."

Exactly nurdin. Thanks for giving it a go.

"this statement from the company not good enough for you?"

No, because that sentence comes with a note (3) which says: "Pro forma NGR range EUR852-885m"

Therefore, by deducting the known figures for Q1, Q2 & Q3 from the projected range we arrive with a range of 188.7 to 221.7 for Q4. We can expect NGR to fall within the upper range of that as per the RNS.

This means we will looking at a change Q-on-Q of between -32.8 to +0.02 (but expect it to be towards the top of that range).

Now we know that Q3 was down 4.7m compared to Q2 and Q3 has traditionally been weak.

Do you think that this is positive?
Do you think this may explain the recent weakness in share price?

[jfishy55] 15/12/2016 12:39

Questionable Kael?

Surely you recall all my sources were from the RNS?
Do you believe those figures from the RNS' are questionable?
Or perhaps you can you show me an error with my maths?

No you can't.
You can't provide your own figures, you can't do your own maths, you can't do any research.

You think that bashing the bear will make the uber bulls on this thread think good of you and as long as team bull shouts the loudest, this will somehow get the share price to rise. Go back to burying your head in the sand and repeat this mantra to yourself: "lalalala 10 pounds by xmas! lalala".

Or you could do as Nurdin is doing and engage in a conversation. I mean, that is why you are here right?

[festario] 15/12/2016 12:27

JFishy, I'm having trouble reconciling your conclusion to the RNS, and I think it's for 2 reasons.1, The assumed date for GVC taking on BWIN, for simplistic accounting purposes, which differs to the actual.2, because I expect GVC in Q4 to exceed the pro forma prediction, which they very often do.That would see Q4 turn out above Q3, quite comfortably.Please also realise that Q2 and Q3 this year had Euro Football championships and Olympic Games included.Therefore the 'shape' of the revenue by quarter is not the same year on year.The overall total for the year is significantly up, so the profile by quarter doesn't trouble me.Finally, I think you'll find that if you ask GVC investor relations for clarification and explanation, you'll find that they will answer you clearly and fully.

[cheshiremoggie] 15/12/2016 12:26

Agree with you nurdin - if a shareholder cant discuss why jfishy55 is wrong(or right) then what are these threads for?
Surely no-one object to factual posts and if he is wrong then it should be easy to show with a tiny bit of effort. If right then... discuss.

My net access went down 3 hours ago just as I was typing this :-
"srp, my apologies and Seasons Greeting to you too".
Poetic justice?

A good day for GVC ( and our bank balances) nevertheless.

CM.

[nurdin] 15/12/2016 12:16

Fishy.... this statement from the company not good enough for you?

'As a consequence the Board now expects pro forma(1) NGR for the year to 31 December 2016 and adjusted/clean EBITDA(2) to be at the upper end of market expectations(3)'

Note, NGR for the FULL YEAR to Dec 2016 to be at the upper end of market expectations.

What is negative about that?

[nurdin] 15/12/2016 12:08

It is better to challenge his numbers with your own maths rather then dismissing him completely.I always like to hear both sides of the argument.

[kop202] 15/12/2016 11:56

J fishyDo you think the recent share price fall is justified based on your arithmetric

[kael] 15/12/2016 11:54

The quality of the above post is questionable indeed, just like the last time you tried to crunch numbers!

[srpactive] 15/12/2016 11:40

Which hedge fund caused the £500m Paysafe share price plunge? Short sellers dodge questions over who is behind anonymous report

By Holly Black for the Daily Mail

Published: 21:51, 14 December 2016 | Updated: 21:51, 14 December 2016

e-mail

2

View comments

Short sellers have dodged questions over which hedge fund is behind an anonymous report that caused £506million to be wiped off the value of payments firm Paysafe.

The Mail can reveal that four funds hold short positions in Paysafe – which means they are betting that its shares will fall.

On Tuesday, the firm's shares dropped by as much as 36 per cent when investors were spooked by an anonymous report from an organisation called Spotlight Research, which accused it of engaging in illegal gambling in China.
Interests: Four funds hold short positions in Paysafe – which means they are betting that its shares will fall

Interests: Four funds hold short positions in Paysafe – which means they are betting that its shares will fall

In recent years, reports like this have become a common tactic of aggressive hedge funds, who don't believe a company is valued correctly.

The most notable was when Quindell was targeted by Gotham Research, wiping £1billion off its market value in 2014.

According to latest filings with regulator the Financial Conduct Authority, the four firms that hold short positions in Paysafe are AEK (UK) Ltd, Oxford Asset Management, Public Equity Partners Management and Sand Grove Capital Management.
RELATED ARTICLES

Previous
1
Next

US Federal Reserve raises interest rates 0.25% after first...
Dutch brewer swoops on British pubs giant: Punch Taverns...
Boohoo shares climb 8% as £3.3m stake in PrettyLittleThing...
Bank closures map of the UK: More than 1,000 branches have...

Share this article
Share

They hold short positions ranging from 0.5 per cent to 3.13 per cent of the firm's stock, and stood to make millions if the share price falls.

The Paysafe allegations focus on its links to online bookmaker Bet365. It is claimed that Paysafe gets more than 50 per cent of its earnings from illegal gambling conducted through Bet365.

The report said Paysafe was allowing illegal gambling in China and evading rules through its digital wallets, which are used to make payments and money transfers.

It is also claimed Paysafe allows illegal gambling in other countries, including India.

The allegation, which spooked investors, was that Paysafe could be hit by a crackdown on illegal gambling in China and that up to 50 per cent of its revenues were at risk from new regulation in Europe.

Paysafe claimed the allegations were either false or no longer relevant. Last night blue chip City brokers leapt to the firm's defence, branding the report 'inaccurate' and containing 'glaring miscalculations'. They claimed many of the assertions had been declared by Paysafe already.

Morgan Stanley said it was a buying opportunity for the shares.

Barclays said the report was 'inaccurate', 'grossly overstated the risks' and some of the claims appeared to be 'pure speculation'.

It said: 'In the past 18 months, we believe Paysafe has done a good job of being more transparent about the risks of its business and thus many items highlighted in the Spotlight Research are not actually new.'

Stockbroker Stifel said the report contained 'glaring miscalculations' and 'misinformation'.

Analysts said the proportion of Paysafe's earnings that came from Bet365 was closer to 20 per cent, and that the company's digital wallets do not support gambling merchants in China.

Paysafe did not comment further. Shares rose 8.1 per cent, or 24.8p to 330.5p.

The Mail was unable to contact AEK or Sand Grove. Oxford Asset Management said it would not comment on matters such as this and Public Equity Partners failed to comment.

The FCA would not comment on the share price fall.

A spokesman for Bet365 said it is a remote gambling operator that takes its legal and regulatory obligations very seriously.

'There is no legislation which expressly prohibits the supply of remote gambling services into China by operators who are based outside China.

'Bet365 has no people, assets or infrastructure in China and does not engage any agents, aggregators or intermediaries, for any purpose, in China.'

[mylands] 15/12/2016 11:37

The volume is certainly picking up with good sized trades going through.

[festario] 15/12/2016 11:31

Didn't Slippy say he'd made money and closed his short last week?In which case I don't even know why he wasted his time here, he certainly wasn't making any money.Archetypal troll behaviour.

[morph7] 15/12/2016 11:28

I'm not vindictive or anything.... But I hope Slippery just lost his house.

[velod] 15/12/2016 11:16

Volume now greater than the typical full average day. For 11:00am-ish that's just simply astonishing!

[velod] 15/12/2016 11:12

And that's the third resistance level just breached so long as it holds. 3 resistance levels taken down in one day???? That has to mean something other than a plain old bullish day. Shorters closing?

[festario] 15/12/2016 10:54

Ohh, I think the seller might have finished too!What a great short squeeze combination that would be.

[woodhawk] 15/12/2016 10:49

Well Dividendmax were pretty accurate with their divi forcast - estimating at 12p. They're estimating 36p for 2017, which would be about 5% at an share price of 730p or 4.5% at 800p(maybe 2 more specials of similar amounts?). Above average for a FTSE company - particularly one with such great growth prospects too.

Right, that's my lot for today, back tonight to see how we're progressing....

[mylands] 15/12/2016 10:34

mnonis

I have Capital Holdings when they first appeared as a major holder in Feb 2016 with exactly the same amount as they held on December 1st 2016. Looks like Bloomberg has it wrong.

[mnomis] 15/12/2016 10:32

Mylands, on further checking, I see per SEC database that the 4th November filing for Capital Group is actually for a position statement at 30-Sep-16 (and not a position change relating to a specific 4th November filing), at which point the holding as per your post above. Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers

[velod] 15/12/2016 10:30

Only 10:30am and current volume is almost 1m so average volume will be surpassed without doubt. Volumes at this level at this time in the morning mean only one thing - institutional buying!

EDIT: Almost 1m??? In the time it took me to post the above it's now showing well over 1m+ Go on say it (alright I'll say it: Holey Moley! )