Tag Archives: structural changes

Consistency with ambition, the case for TWTC

Valuations remain high (S&P PE at 19.5 and CAPE over 25) despite recent volatility and I have posted on my views previously. A recent post on Level3 (LVLT) in December referred to increases in telecom valuation multiples. Since then LVLT reported a very good end to the year and has rocketed to around $38, or an approx 9.4 EV to 2014 guided EBITDA multiple (and 8.7 to my 2015 estimated EBITDA). An analyst report, whilst upgrading the stock, commented “with a focus that has shifted from a slow deleveraging exercise via acquisitions to now focusing on integration and execution of assets the company possesses, we believe we are on the cusp of a sustained outperformance”. Although I generally ignore anything analysts say, I too am bullish on LVLT over the longer term based upon the virtuous circle of improving operating results and decreasing debt. However I think valuation may have gotten ahead of itself with LVLT up 70% in 6 months. I have taken some profits to buy some downside protection. There is likely to be some bumps on the road in 2014 both for companies like LVLT and from an overall market viewpoint. Structural changes in the rapidly changing telecom market like net neutrality or the proposed Comcast/Time Warner Cable (TWC) merger may also have an impact.

Speaking of Time Warner, there is a telecom that was spun off from Time Warner in the late 1990s called TW Telecom (TWTC) that has a history over the past 10 years of outstanding execution. Over that time, TWTC has diversified itself away from its roots (top 10 customers make up 18% of revenues in 2013 compared to 23% 5 years ago and 40% 10 years ago) with a current focus on business Ethernet, data networking, IP VPN, Internet access, and network security services for enterprises. The graphic below illustrates how successful and consistent TWTC’s operating results has been. I would particularly highlight their results through the troubled 2007 to 2009 period. TWTC have had solid 35% EBITDA margins for the past 10 years with average capital expenditures of 25% as they build their last mile metro fiber network to their business customers on a success basis. Their execution is in no small measure down to one of the best (and most consistent) management teams in the business, led by long term CEO Larissa Herda.

click to enlargeTW Telecom a history of consistent operating results

In addition to solid operating results, TWTC have always shown disciplined balance sheet management with net debt well below 2 times EBITDA in the past 5 years (except for 2013 at 2.3 times as per the changes below). As a result of the factors highlighted above, TWTC has always enjoyed a premium valuation multiple in the market as the graph (of enterprise value to twelve month trailing (TTM) and future twelve months (FTM) EBITDA) below shows.

click to enlargeTW Telecom EV to EBITDA Multiples

TWTC has long been talked of as an acquirer or a target for others but nothing of substance has materialised since their Xspedius acquisition back in 2006. The firm has increasingly undertaken shareholder friendly actions such as the $400 million spend on its own shares in 2013. TWTC has also bought back convertible debt and pushed out the maturities on its debt which has increased from YE2012 of $1.76 billion to just below $2 billion as at YE2013.

The reason for the increase in debt plus an additional one-off capital expenditure of $120 million in 2013 on capital leases (not included in graph above), with another one off $50 million due in 2014, is a strategic market expansion announced by TWTC in late 2013. The strategic market expansion is to extend its metro fiber footprint into 5 new high demand markets and accelerate the density of its metro-fiber footprint in 27 existing markets by 17%. Given TWTC’s history of execution, their plans for expansion and the (almost giddish) optimism of management during their Q4 conference call caught my attention. These are people who have not make such promises lightly in the past.

One of the factors behind their expansion is the success of new product innovation introduced in 2012, namely products called Enhanced Management and Dynamic Capacity. Such products allow enterprises to automate, manage and purchase network capacity on a flexible real time framework based upon their needs and offer flexibility in accessing connections to private, hybrid and public clouds. TWTC refer to their state of the art network as the Intelligent Network and are marketing their range of products on the basis of what they call their Constellation Platform which “will connect our customers nearly instantaneously through data centers directly to numerous applications in the cloud with increasing network automation”. All of these fancy products names and high minded assertions shouldn’t in themselves be taken as anything earth shattering in the rapidly changing IT and telecom market. What may be special is that TWTC has indicated increased interest in their offerings and that, through partnerships with cloud providers such as Amazon, they are getting interest from new enterprises with big data needs . TWTC state that their expansion is “a very targeted opportunity to rapidly increase our market density to drive additional revenue growth and greater cash flow” and that it “is all part of our broader vision of bringing better, faster and easier solutions to customers as we continue to innovate and create market differentiation”.

Given the history of execution by TWTC’s management, I would be positive on their ability to deliver on their promises. They have indicated that EBITDA margins will be under pressure in 2014 as they staff up for the new expansion. For 2015 & 2016, EBITDA expansion of 10% to 15% does not seem unreasonable to me based upon my calculations. Given a current EV/EBITDA on a TTM basis of over 11, TWTC is not cheap and, as stated in the beginning of this post, there are likely to be bumps in the road over 2014. Such bumps may provide an opportunity to back TWTC and its expansion at an attractive valuation.

I, for one, will be looking out for it.

A look over some bookmakers’ books

I have been doing some digging into the dynamics of betting exchanges, the largest and best known of which is BetFair. The betting and gaming sector itself has been the subject of a mountain of academic research, there is even a journal dedicated to it! Quants have moved in and are actively pitting their algorithms against human gambling behaviour on the exchanges. A recent intriguing Bloomberg article on tennis betting illustrates some strategies now common in the marketplace.

Technology has driven disruptive disintermediation across many sectors such as the travel & airline industry and more recently across the retail sector. There was a fascinating documentary on the BBC by Robert Preston late last year on the UK retail sector which concluded that the future for many clothing retail outlets would be to act like galleries for consumers to peruse items with the ultimate purchase decision being made online.

The betting and gaming sector is one undergoing structural changes due to the massive increase in online activity. Additional competitive threats from disintermediated business models such as betting exchange pose interesting questions for the sector. Such structural market changes may be useful in understanding the impact of new business models in other sectors such as financial services –  peer to peer (P2P) lending in banking or the ILS market in insurance come to mind. On the growing P2P lending sector, there was an article on the front page of Friday’s FT on how a UK developer sourced £4 million of debt through online P2P platform Lendinvest which may prove to be defining moment of change. On the impact of the ILS market, there was another interesting FT article that contended that the ILS market is resulting in structural changes in a market with “a lot of excessive overhead, ie highly paid staff, that can be eliminated”.

Before looking deeper into structural changes in the betting and gaming sector, I needed to understand the “traditional” betting market better. Besides the odd poker tournament (with real people), I am not a gambler and therefore not a user of the services provided by betting firms. I know enough that the odds are obviously in the bookies favour but I know very little about the economics of the betting industry. As such, this post details my research on the UK betting industry. A follow on post will go into the broader picture and some (likely rambling) thoughts on the impact of structural changes from betting exchanges like Betfair.

So, I concentrated on the UK market where data is freely available. The graphic below outlines the size of the UK betting and gaming market with the main providers. The market is split by revenue approx 60% retail and 40% online. The retail market is split approx 50:50 between over the counter betting at shops and gaming on machines (aka fixed odds betting terminals or FOBTs). On the online side, sports betting (commonly referred to as the Sportsbook) is approx 40% with gaming making up the remainder, led by casino (approx 30%), poker and bingo (approx 15% each).

click to enlargeUK Gambling Market Size

The main players on the retail side stress the advantages of their multi-access models and, to counter the impression that retail betting shops attach the older demographic, cite statistics that show even younger customers often use retail outlets (more and more in combination with online and mobile).

The gaming machine/FOBT sector has come under renewed focus recently. Derek Webb, a successful gambler, is one of the principles behind the Campaign for Fairer Gambling and has described the machines as “crack cocaine”. Campaigners point to the rapid rise in revenue from FOBT, which were only widely introduced in the early 2000s, the addictive nature of the machines and that users are high frequency gamblers with a concentration amongst younger men with low incomes. Bookies point to the high payouts (the margin taken by the bookmaker is generally about 3% to 4% of the amount staked whereby such margin is referred to as the gross win) and the importance of machines supporting the retail shop model (I estimate that FOBT can contribute 70% to 80% of retail operating profits). Political pressure is mounting to restrict the amount that can be bet on the machines and JP Morgan recently cut its rating on Ladbrokes and William Hill saying that the likely change “could make the bottom 20pc of Ladbrokes and William Hill shops loss-making, with a further 20pc only marginally profitable, and require significant restructuring to close shops in order to cut costs.

I selected Ladbrokes, William Hill and Paddy Power as firms to do some deeper analysis. William Hill and Ladbrokes are long established firms, particularly in the retail sector. William Hill is also the market leader in the online sector with a particular strength in online casino gaming. Paddy Power is the new kid on the block growing aggressively in online, particularly over the past 5 years, from its Irish base into the fourth largest in the online sector. Size wise, William Hill and Ladbrokes had revenue of £1.3 billion and £1 billion in 2012 respectively while Paddy Power had 2012 revenue of €650 million (approx £570 million). It would have been interesting to have a deeper look at the online only Bet365, which was founded in 2000 by Denise Coates and is now the number 2 in the UK online market with over £200 million in revenue, but unfortunately Bet365 is private. The graph below shows the share price moves of the selected firms since 2009.

click to enlargeShare Price William Hill Ladbrokes Paddy Power

The graph below shows the profit before tax margins of the firms since 2003. As can be seen, profit margins have been under pressure, particularly for Ladbrokes in recent years.

click to enlargePBT % William Hill Ladbrokes Paddy Power

Revenue and operating profit breakdown for William Hill is below.

click to enlargeWilliam Hill Revenue & Operating Profit Breakdown

Revenue and operating profit breakdown for Ladbrokes is below.

click to enlargeLadbrokes Revenue & Operating Profit Breakdown

Revenue and operating profit breakdown for Paddy Power is below.

click to enlargePaddy Power Revenue & Operating Profit Breakdown

As mentioned above, the percentage that a bookmaker takes as a margin in each business is called the gross win (another commonly used term is the overround which refers to the excess above the sum of the odds). Net revenues are gross wins less VAT and fair-value adjustments for free bets, promotions and bonuses. Care needs to be taken when comparing gross win percentages (i.e. gross win divided by amounts staked) across firms as the make-up of the underlying books is important (gross wins varies by sport type such as football, horses, tennis, etc and by geography). Also items such as betting levies and charges vary and some are not deducted in the gross win to net revenue calculations but rather in operating expenses. Items such as the new UK point of consumption (POC) tax that is due to be introduced later this year also need to be understood in their potential accounting treatment. The graph below compares the reported gross win percentages amongst the firms in the retail over the counter (OTC) business and in the online Sportsbook businesses for the firms.

click to enlargeGross Win Percentage

I have found it difficult to get metrics for the profitability of both the retail and the online gaming businesses. As discussed above on the FOBT business, the operating profit contribution from gaming can be significant. I suspect that online gaming also contributes significantly to the online operating profit although not as high as the 70% to 80% contribution that I estimated for the retail business

Online gaming is also a more cross border business and is the fastest growing segment of the gambling industry. H2 Gambling Capital, a leading supplier of data and market intelligence on the global gambling industry, puts the size of the global online gaming market at approx $30 billion. Large markets such as the US are seen as ultimately providing a massive opportunity for growth once regulatory issues are resolved. Although firms withdrew from the US in 2006 after the passing of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA), individual States such as Nevada and New Jersey are looking at ways that they can approve online gaming and challenge federal restrictions.

Although the established firms like William Hill and Ladbrokes are facing headwinds in their business with significant competition from online upstarts like Paddy Power, Bet365 and Betfair, they have size and powerful brands on their side. Both have made significant investments in IT infrastructure to support their business. The area of liability management is one that is particularly interesting. Ladbrokes, for example, has made significant investment in enhancing their trading abilities through the development of Morse, their own algorithmic robot. They cite the use of Morse in improving pricing which is particular important in the growing bet in play (BIP) market, as the exhibit shows.

click to enlargeLadbrokes Pricing & Trading Exhibit 2012 Investor Day

They also cite the use of such active liability management tools in improving outcomes such as the Royal Ascot results below.

click to enlargeLadbrokes Liability Management Exhibit 2012 Investor Day

Changes in the whole betting and gaming sector have been rapidly evolving over recent years. These changes and the impact of betting exchanges will be the subject of a follow on post with some further musings in the coming weeks.