Member Info for SG2025

@topchat, you make a good point, I did not realise. And maybe @knot can add to it from legal perspective. Should the banks pursue car dealers, this would definitely mean a number of them may go bankrupt if lenders have it their way... and FCA/HMT and government will have no input to that. How would that reflect on the FCA and government? This might be another avenue for banks to put pressure on FCA/HMT? Although it might not be simple for lenders to pursue car dealers in court as they can argue that FCA is penalizing banks for breach of CONC etc rules which dealers had no say over....

In all honesty, I am as clueless as you or others, and therefore keenly following this forum and the developments here, despite no current holding and no intention to buy anytime soon. I will get access to analyst commentary next week, and if I come across anything relevant, happy to share on this forum..

I am only saying what ChatGpt said, since I am no legal expert. This may be complete BS, but this is what I got:

Simply commissioning a 3rd party investigator to investigate and then file a report independently with regulator does not break the law. Question is did they collaborate to cook up these claims, which they knew were false or misleading against Evolution, which Evolution needs to prove not the other way around. Essentially, Evolution need to prove that PTC were part of a scheme to hurt Evolution's reputation and break the law etc, which is not easy, unless regulators get into it and dig out PTC's servers, emails and all other communications to prove so and find something concrete (assuming they still exist and not destroyed already) . Evolution is very unlikely have access to these..... The legal bar for Evolution to prove PTC did do wrong and broke the law is quite high,.. and may be given their size and resources they can do it, but who knows. PTC perhaps have Mosad on their side ;) to balance things against Evolution..

Totally agree, the share price reaction totally debunks the legal risk or high liability least in the short or medium term.. The court case will take time that no one knows how much and the liability also is very very hard to estimate, given such court cases are mostly settled out of court. While this goes, management will paint a positive picture (for good or worse) and brush aside any legal liability as they did in September analyst call.

Strangely, there have been no reported analyst commentary that says strongly against following any uncertainty like yesterday's news. This in my view is also quite revealing, and impossible to know if this is ignorance / complacency or the right way to interpret the news.

I do fear there is be a risk (small or large) black swan event from any news around regulator investigation or how this goes in the US court.. if there is a good news, the stock will recover 20-40%, but if it goes adversely, it could as, manfor says, fall very quickly to no end, on the news even before one gets a chance to react.

Good post @TheTrotsky. I mostly agree with you, but few notable differences in my opinion:

> I also do agree regarding the special divis. I would also expect some buybacks given the domiciliation etc. In any case, even if they pay normal dividends, there will be a 15% bump in realised divis to shareholders given no Jersey tax, that's still a somewhat better outcome. At current SP, it equates to more than 8.5% yield. On top if they do say, just 50m in buybacks for this FY that will mean 10% capital return. And as the turnaround comes back in 12-24 months, they can easily ramp up buybacks instead of divis.

> I also do agree with your post on kitchen sink, but I think the last presentation by company was supposed to be the kitchen sink excercise.

> I have gone through B&M rns several times, and I think there is a level of misunderstanding or in other words, it has been interpreted out of context out of disappointment or fear. Will post some views later...

Few other points:

> B&M IPOed in 2014 at a forward PE of more than 20x by memory (2.7bn market cap). I worked on its IPO and did diligence before it was listed. It now trades at 6.5x. All financial/earning metrics have tripled or more since then, except LFL growth and management disappointing vs outcome. The key difference in my opinion now vs before is the core operations - they are afterall a discount chain, and they have lost that aspect over years under previous management. Look at the B&M presentation from IPO and you will see that a lot of what the new CEO's proposed strategy comes from and hence it resonated so well with me.

> Separately, some good news today for UK retailers including B&M: Treasury expected to close tax loophole used by Shein

https://www.ft.com/content/f432a943-cbd0-4184-8fa0-2e3d2d32cbae

@Chid, I did not want to engage with you and ignore you like all others.. but thought I give one last attempt, just hoping that you are a real person (not a bot), and might for one last time want to get into a logical and sound discussion backed by precedents and verifiable facts for once and not just usual cynical conspiracy theories as you have been posting on CBG as well as Lloyds forum (bitcoin, gold etc etc.)..

Assuming you are right, how does your theory matches up to FCA's recent settlement with BlueCrest? There are countless such examples where FCA (& HMT) made loud noises/demand for high fines/punishments, but settled for less comparatively.

Not going into details around Bluecrest settlement, FCA demanded $700m, but settled for $101m. Plenty details online or in the link below:

https://financialregulation.linklaters.com/post/102lqn9/fca-secures-us-101m-redress-from-bluecrest-over-conflicts-management-issues

Thanks Liberty2 for the v useful inputs. Where did you source the stats on II holdings for future reference ?

CEO can not buy or sell any shares, even if he so much wants to - the company is in restricted period until H1 results publish in November. He can only transact in any shares thereafter.

Apparently as per ChatGPT, the odds stack up for Playtech's defense as per precedents and that its very hard for Evolution to win against Playtech.

If Playtech merely commissioned an investigation, that by itself is not illegal — unless: They knowingly directed false information to be published; or They breached data protection, privacy, or competition laws.

Playtech will likely argue:

It commissioned an internal due-diligence exercise (lawful and standard in competitive M&A contexts).

It did not author or disseminate any defamatory material.

Any report produced was not intended for publication — therefore not “defamation” under the law. If the court accepts that framing, Playtech’s liability could be minimal — perhaps limited to legal costs or a negotiated settlement.

Analyst views / commentary:

> Several commentary pieces highlight that while the fundamentals of the business (gambling software, live casino, B2B model) remain intact, the risk profile has changed significantly because of the legal/reputational overhang. E.g., one report: “The market reaction may be exaggerated.”

> From the consensus data: Although the share price has fallen sharply today, the average (pre-news) price targets still indicated material upside (e.g., ~+50% from current levels) per some sources.

> Technical analysts are also flagging caution: one technical summary shows “sell” signals currently prevailing for Playtech.

Good recovery least from the bottom. Well done to those who braved out and bought lower, and to those who held the nerves and didn’t sell..

Anything else you Moron. Copying up RNS or from articles is not using your brain cells…just copy the links next time, that way you will least come up somewhat smart. I can understand you are emotional and hurt about yesterday’s losses, so chill out.

Filter me then. Btw, how are you any different...

Man.. you knew what I was thinking about you, but didnt say to keep the forum civil !!

Very hard for anyone to put an amount to the settlement if there is one. For Evolution, they would want to burry their competition if they have a strong case, if not settle to extract most money. As per news articles, Evolution shares fell by $10bn after that fake report came out. Also, Evolution is $15bn market cap company - so Playtech is a minnow comparatively. There may also be a regulatory investigation into the matter if Evolution complains to US authorities and likewise in UK given its UK listed. I may sound pessimistic and perhaps I am for lack of visibility as to what will transpire,.. Not suggesting anyone to buy or sell, but just engaging in logical conversation out of interest and curiosity,

You look like you've run a large company as a CEO with a lot of conviction and experience of what the new CEO should and shouldn't have done in first few months.. Lol... Anyhow, I totally disagree and time will tell.. Wouldn't engage in further discussion as see unlikely there will be any sound logical deductions.

Be very interesting to read the statement. if and when it comes out. If they are innocent, it should have come out already, been more than an hour since the start of the fall. But if they are involved, they deny it, they will committing further sin. Quite a catch 22 situation - Die if you Do, Die if you Don't.. :(

It may also be new CEO giving himself more headroom to deliver vs under deliver. If they get EBITDA to the top of of new range, it will do better for sentiment and bottom vs bottom of the previous range. Essentially kitchen sink before building up and better... will know more in mid Nov ..

I bought some STB recently and think it will do better than CBG.. why? ...because I liked their press release better than CBG's. They have also mentioned the potential impact based on FCA's proposal.

I know everyone (including me) on this forum have taken it as a fact that FCA will budge and that there will be legal challenge thereafter, but if FCA doesn't budge (or budges very little) in its final scheme - there are still some probability / chances of it happening. And if it does happen, banks will have to make further provisions immediately (as a regulatory requirement) like now, even if a court case is being filed thereafter. I think for CBG this will again be material - even if for short term, this will hit their CET ratio and push out capital distribution and growth. I think institutions will be pricing this uncertainty in current share price or their views on the stock and timing to build stake.

Not to distract anyone from long term thesis, but something to be prepared of (as extreme downside, still better than before SC case :).. Just my guess without any popcorn ofcourse :)

Its the news around Playtech - see the link and my posts on that forum.

Been asking ChatGpt and their response (on backgound / legal liability / potential defense / similar past cases) has been pretty staggering. More importantly, if this is true, the downside and uncertainty will be staggering. I wish the holders best of luck - but I will stay clear and will look to the developments out of curiosity...