Shouldn't This Man Be Fired?
4:04pm William Hill announced their results:A public gamble on Grand National winner Comply or Die cost bookmaker William Hill more than £7m, wiping out all of its profits from the rest of the three-day Aintree meeting.
Victory by the nine-year old, which was backed down from 11-1 to 7-1 co-favourite on the day of the race, was the bookie's biggest loser in the first 16 weeks of its new financial year.
Ralph Topping, William Hill chief executive, said the result was "an absolute stinker", holding back growth in over-the-counter gross win to 3pc in the period to April 22, despite largely favourable results elsewhere.
"I watched the race with my trading director and I have never seen a man more nervous," Mr Topping said. "He was down on his knees."
Erm, hang on a minute. That's not what a bookmaker is supposed to do, is it? Bet on who they think they will win? (Yes, I know, they're not betting with others, but by running an unbalanced book that is what they are in effect doing.)
The aim is to run a balanced book, so that whoever wins the race there's a profit to be had.
In financial market terms, bookies are supposed to be the market makers, taking a turn, not position takers, speculating upon the results.
Or am I just out of date again? Like those with the rather touchingly naive belief that hedge funds are still arbitrageurs, rather than speculators?
Be the first to comment on this article!
Back to top