THU, 27TH APR 2017

In-Depth Analysis for the gaming industry

NEWS 22 November 2016
IGT reports net loss of $2m in Q3 results
By Caroline Watson
International Game Technology report a net loss of $2m in the third quarter results of 2016, reflecting $21m in primary non-cash foreign exchange losses.

The report shows that the gaming and lottery supplier’s operating income increased 26% to $164m from $130m in the third quarter of 2015.

Adjusted operating income grew 9% to $286m, from $261m, as higher lottery profits were partially offset by the timing of bad debt expense, investment in the installed base, increased global product marketing costs, and research and development spending.

Nonetheless, strong growth and higher gaming product sales increased IGT’s total revenue to $1.27bn in the third quarter. Figures show that IGT’s international gaming product sales leaped 12% year-on-year on a constant currency basis, excluding North America and Italy sales.

As well as this, IGT credited the “large systems sale” in Asia for the 5% increase of total revenue.

CEO of IGT, Marco Sala says: “Strong lottery performance across the world, a larger global installed base, and increased sales of gaming machines drove another quarter of solid revenue and profit expansion.”

Adjusted EBITDA of $430m was 4% higher than in the third quarter of 2015, representing the fourth consecutive quarter of year-over-year growth. As well as this, interest expense was $118m compared to $122m in the prior-year period.

IGT CFO, Alberto Fornaro says: “We achieved broad-based growth across regions in the third quarter and our financial condition is strong. Higher profitability enabled us to maintain our leverage ratio despite the significant interest and tax payments of the quarter. Based on our performance to date, we remain comfortable with our adjusted EBITDA outlook for the full year.”

IN-DEPTH 21 April 2017
Casino cheating laws: Is clarity being lost?
According to US and UK courts, world-renowned poker player Phil Ivey’s recent methods of winning at a casino game were on the wrong side of the law. However, the decision drastically split the judges in the UK Court of Appeal; so was this truly an open and shut case?