Do you think having to open studios in every state in NA due to regulation will impact scalability of their one stop shop and therefore decrease margins and growth significantly in the future ?
I don't think this will impact the scalability of their one-stop shop, as they can continue to roll it out to operators. However, it may require them to have more studios than they currently do, which could lead to lower overall margins. Despite this, it's positive for growth because building more studios indicates increasing demand. While margins might decrease, overall cash flow will grow, which is ultimately what matters—investors can't spend percentage margins.
Do you think they will get out of RNG, especially if they are losing market share in it in North America? Is there a good reason to keep it, or why they went into RNG in the first place?
No, I don't think they will exit the RNG market, and there is one simple reason. At the moment, they offer a one-stop shop for everything from RNG to Live game. Although they don't earn as much from RNG, they can provide casino operators with everything they need. If they were to drop RNG, casino operators would need to find another solution, opening the door for competitors. There’s an argument that Evolution earns indirect revenue from offering RNG, but it doesn't excuse the poor performance. They need to address this decline because they invested a lot of money into it. At the time, management expected to achieve 10% annual growth in RNG.
Great summary as ever - thank you. The revenue slowdown is having the biggest impact on share price in my view, especially when looking at the QoQ trend - it isn't just one geography / market slowing. Still believe this is an attractive long term compounder but the revenue growth trajectory looks to be recalibrating. I'm still not clear on the Galaxy acquisition also - need to read some more on Galaxy to understand how compelling this is (or isn't!).
Appreciate the feedback. I agree that revenue is slowing across all regions. Even in Asia, which is the most important market and had been growing between 50-60% over the past year, growth has now slowed to 22%. I don't think this needs to reaccelerate, but if it falls to single digits in the near future, the potential will definitely not be as high.
Regarding Galaxy, I'm in favour of these small bolt-on acquisitions. They already pay Galaxy for services, so essentially, they are now in-housing it and can use the technology to develop more proprietary games or use cases.
I think the biggest issue with Evo is regulation. In case of regulation in US that suppliers would not be allowed to operate in some US states if they also supply operator in grey/black markets. Is a pausible/viable option to split the company in different parts one servering only white markets while the other serves grey/black. Is that doable? Is it something that ever has been discussed by management or board?
Do you have any source material suggesting this is likely in the US? In my opinion, this is not very likely. Evolution's customers are the casino operators, all of which are licensed. It is the casino operators that supply the grey/black markets, not Evolution. Evolution has no control over this, nor is it their responsibility to police. Splitting the company would not be viable because it would lose all the IP and scale advantages it currently enjoys. I agree that regulation is the biggest risk in general, but I don't view it from that angle.
I cant find the link to the news/article I read. Perhaps someone else also read the same thing? I will continue to search for the source.
I would like to think that it was New Jersey that was considering tightening legislation for online casinos and potentially accepting only operators who operate in white markets. This means they might exclude suppliers who are active in grey or black markets to ensure a more regulated and transparent gambling environment.
Either way if it New Jersey or another State this kind of regulation would hurt Evolution since they also supply for grey markets? This could be a problem if others state were considering the same legalisation?
I've searched the internet and can't find any reference to this. If this were to come into play, it would mean every online casino supplier would be impacted because they all have revenue coming from these unregulated markets. For example, listed competitor Playtech had 20% of its revenue from unregulated markets in 2023.
It's important to differentiate between casino suppliers and casino operators. Evolution is a casino supplier, not a casino operator. Any rules that operators have to comply with do not directly impact Evolution.
Do you think having to open studios in every state in NA due to regulation will impact scalability of their one stop shop and therefore decrease margins and growth significantly in the future ?
I don't think this will impact the scalability of their one-stop shop, as they can continue to roll it out to operators. However, it may require them to have more studios than they currently do, which could lead to lower overall margins. Despite this, it's positive for growth because building more studios indicates increasing demand. While margins might decrease, overall cash flow will grow, which is ultimately what matters—investors can't spend percentage margins.
You did an amazing job! Great post
Thank you
Do you think they will get out of RNG, especially if they are losing market share in it in North America? Is there a good reason to keep it, or why they went into RNG in the first place?
No, I don't think they will exit the RNG market, and there is one simple reason. At the moment, they offer a one-stop shop for everything from RNG to Live game. Although they don't earn as much from RNG, they can provide casino operators with everything they need. If they were to drop RNG, casino operators would need to find another solution, opening the door for competitors. There’s an argument that Evolution earns indirect revenue from offering RNG, but it doesn't excuse the poor performance. They need to address this decline because they invested a lot of money into it. At the time, management expected to achieve 10% annual growth in RNG.
Thank you!
Great one.
Thanks for the feedback 👍
Great summary as ever - thank you. The revenue slowdown is having the biggest impact on share price in my view, especially when looking at the QoQ trend - it isn't just one geography / market slowing. Still believe this is an attractive long term compounder but the revenue growth trajectory looks to be recalibrating. I'm still not clear on the Galaxy acquisition also - need to read some more on Galaxy to understand how compelling this is (or isn't!).
Appreciate the feedback. I agree that revenue is slowing across all regions. Even in Asia, which is the most important market and had been growing between 50-60% over the past year, growth has now slowed to 22%. I don't think this needs to reaccelerate, but if it falls to single digits in the near future, the potential will definitely not be as high.
Regarding Galaxy, I'm in favour of these small bolt-on acquisitions. They already pay Galaxy for services, so essentially, they are now in-housing it and can use the technology to develop more proprietary games or use cases.
I think the biggest issue with Evo is regulation. In case of regulation in US that suppliers would not be allowed to operate in some US states if they also supply operator in grey/black markets. Is a pausible/viable option to split the company in different parts one servering only white markets while the other serves grey/black. Is that doable? Is it something that ever has been discussed by management or board?
Do you have any source material suggesting this is likely in the US? In my opinion, this is not very likely. Evolution's customers are the casino operators, all of which are licensed. It is the casino operators that supply the grey/black markets, not Evolution. Evolution has no control over this, nor is it their responsibility to police. Splitting the company would not be viable because it would lose all the IP and scale advantages it currently enjoys. I agree that regulation is the biggest risk in general, but I don't view it from that angle.
I cant find the link to the news/article I read. Perhaps someone else also read the same thing? I will continue to search for the source.
I would like to think that it was New Jersey that was considering tightening legislation for online casinos and potentially accepting only operators who operate in white markets. This means they might exclude suppliers who are active in grey or black markets to ensure a more regulated and transparent gambling environment.
Either way if it New Jersey or another State this kind of regulation would hurt Evolution since they also supply for grey markets? This could be a problem if others state were considering the same legalisation?
Thank you for sharing that, I need to do reading on the matter. It appears to be in the very early stages.
I've searched the internet and can't find any reference to this. If this were to come into play, it would mean every online casino supplier would be impacted because they all have revenue coming from these unregulated markets. For example, listed competitor Playtech had 20% of its revenue from unregulated markets in 2023.
It's important to differentiate between casino suppliers and casino operators. Evolution is a casino supplier, not a casino operator. Any rules that operators have to comply with do not directly impact Evolution.
Michigan is a state where this is being looked at. Some of EVO competitors like LNW are pushing for this change I believe.
Ah, it was Michigan! Thank you.
Here is a link:
https://publicgaming.com/news-categories/regulatory-issues/12952-michigan-gaming-control-board-attempting-to-parse-legal-and-illegal-igaming-market-activity
Thank you!
You’re welcome 👍