@ChrisGuthrie A big part of my arg on existing games is that 'garbage' can still be monetized successfully.
There are many orgs out there that monetize what you & I may consider 'garbage' but off which a successful biz may be built.
@ChrisGuthrie For eg. The $AMZN bookstore concept was initially garbage to me....but the success speaks for itself.
I doubt we will see $SKLZ joining hands with large devs on existing titles like Call of Duty. The model only works if all both/all players in the specific game are betting...
@ChrisGuthrie ...so if you extend the existing title onto $SKLZ for monetisation - you run the risk of having the same game across 2 diff apps... Viability is questionable.
This however doesn't mean they don't join hands on new titles. All we need on $SKLZ is a new blockbuster hit...
@ChrisGuthrie ...and that can happen with existing small developers or with large studios they don't have a relationship with.
This is the issue when investing in $SKLZ though. You really need to be able to take comfort from a) the execution and monetization of simple games to date,...
@ChrisGuthrie b) team behind the org - executives, board and strategic investors, c) intelligent deployment of $600m cash $SKLZ is sitting on, d) potential to bring new exciting titles from new & existing partners and e)potential for $SKLZ to make a foray into true eSports world & make it work
@ChrisGuthrie Thats why I started by saying it's not an easy inv. But, there's a lot to like here - investors need to feel comf with the higher risk, while noting assymetric payoff if successful.
$SKLZ have a basic biz currrntly but future may be brighter than the fins & product suite shows
@ChrisGuthrie 1 more thing. I don't think other large devs will make their own platforms.
That'd mean investing in a new product with a diff set of customers.
Rather I find potential of hosting mob based tournaments etc on the $SKLZ platform as a way for them to monetize off existing titles
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ Leveraged long $PGNY in size ahead of results on 28th Feb.
Bloomberg based consensus looks quite easy to beat, and is at the lower end of the company's own guidance possibly because of the Omicron impact in late Dec.
2/ But anyway there is a baby boom happening and all those people who were waiting for the pandemic to recede, will now proceed with IVF and other clinical options.
$PGNY is best placed to benefit from this.
3/ In addition, note that former $PGNY CEO has become the Exec Chairman and sounds to be actively looking at M&A options.
CFO has become CEO now and sadly for Mr. Anevski, stock has fallen just as he took over.
Rev ex Tac of $142.2m BEAT vs est $140m (+97% yoy). CTV+52% yot
Adj EBITDA of $67.5m BEAT vs est $60m (48% margin)
Adj EPS of 26c MISS vs est 29c
Q1 forecast rev ex TAC $105-$109m MISS vs est $109.4m
Sees FY22 rev "well over $500m" and Levered FCF > $100m
2/ Overall I see these as good results. Q1 guidance a little conservative but good to see the much better than expected FCF for next year ($100m+) vs cons of $100m.
More upside to FCF if guidance proves to be conservative and if integration completed ahead of time.
3/
I suspect the conservative guidance is a reflection of cont'd supply chain pressures impacting some ad spending as previously highlighted (esp car dealerships) but I see this a short term issues which is being mitigated slowly while travel & hospitality ad spending ramps up.
1/
Thought the $TRMR presentation today was fine. For those who couldnt attend, company took some questions over the webcast:
1. Director dealings - $TRMR suggested to senior directors that they enter into a 10b5 plan - which is automated selling for the next 18months...
2/
..irrespective of time, price, etc.
Reason they did this is because company is engaged in strategic conversations and so wish to be removed from trading decisions, so entered into 10b5 plan. Also said a large part of their comp was related to stock comp....
3/ ....so wish to realize some value. "We still believe in the business".
2. Re guidance: said they want to be transparent and keep it real. They wish to remain cautious and deliver to plan rather than overpromise.