Is that a good thing?
Printable View
It's in the timing of the turnsound in sentiment.
Have a look at GPG closer, Ratkin.
It went seriously out of favor (and deservedly so due to the gross mismanagement by Ron and his piglets) but since middle of last year, offshore institutions (starting with Soros) started buying off local institutions.
Stock has put on 50% in 8 months.
Good enough for me.
I have received a research report from one of the major brokers with a valuation above $5.
Fully expecting the broker to give this stock a big push in Australia and Asia where investors love gambling stocks.
Sold mine at a reasonable profit six months ago, because as a smalltime gambler, (yes can afford it )have noted that the free spins and payouts of all pokie machines has declined over last 12months . now find TAB a better return......speaking to others who enjoy a night at the pokies the payout is shocking...
Yes Dividend is good....but will the joe blogg punter keep playing when they do not have a fun reasonable run for their money....instead of spending e.g.$100 for a couple of hours entertainment they will spend $40.00 and walk away...we did....If every punter thinks the way we do its a diminishing form of entertainment, guess the tax take has diminished the returns...Pleased we sold when we did...
Looks like breakout will be on the upside.
Looks like BlackRock is paying up now so only one way to go.
Next stop $3.90, and if that breaks, me thinkth SKC will easily go to at least $4.50.
BlackRock is the world's biggest asset and fund manager - US$4,096,000,000,000 (yes, US$4.1 trillion) of funds under management, and 20% of SKC is but a flea bite.
Not sure if you can extrapolate your own experience to what happens to everyone else. If what you are saying is true it means that SKC has changed the payout ratio on their pokies. There has been no reason for them to do this. As far as I am aware the goverment tax take on pokies has not changed on a per machine basis. Tax equivalence seems to be the main issue with profitability of casinos. This is what has made Adelaide casino a dog for so long. There has been much crowing over the last few months as this issue has been 'fixed'. I suppose that SKC management could be paying out more larger jackpots and less smaller jackpots. But I imagine you can 'choose' this yourself by choosing the kind of machine you play (1c or $1 for instance). All gambling dens must strike a balance between retained bets and payouts. If the perceived payout is too low, then ultimately customers will not come in the door.
Revenue for the Auckland casino (excluding the high rollers) was listed at $213.5m for the half year ended 31st December 2013 , verses $213.1m for the half year ended 31st December 2012. Almost no change. Is there any evidence, apart from anecdotal, that SKC are creaming off more revenue to the bottom line? I am genuinely interested!
SNOOPY
discl: hold SKC
The latest half year result is out and this time I want to have a little grizzle. It was a bit disappointing to see it lower than the prior comparable period, but that is not my main gripe.
Much of the decline can be attributed to the NZD/AUD exchange rate appreciation. That cuts down AUD profits and revenues in NZD terms. We all know this. Yet Morrison is quick to try and normalise his results, with reference to what would have happened if the NZD/AUD currency exchange rate had remained constant. See second slide of the half year presentation "1H14 Result Overview–Normalised Result." I don't buy the argument that the currency effect does not influence revenue. If the cost of visiting a country goes down, due to a weaker currency, you are liable to get more tourists coming in as they perceive your tourist destination as "better value". To emphsise what would have happened if the exchange rate had not moved is like looking at a theoretical marketplace for gaming that never existed.
The other reference comparison that I don't like is what would have happened if Asian investors had a 'normal' win rate in the high roller rooms. Why can't Morrison get over the fact that luck goes up and down and investors should not be thought of as idiots who do not recognise this?
The problem with reporting 'normalised high roller winnings' is that one day a high rolling investor is going to have a really big win. Morrison will come out and say:
"Well if he hadn't had that big win then our result would have been good."
The fact that he did have that big win and the result was a real cash outflow for SKC shareholders doesn't seem to register with Morrison.
SNOOPY