EML Payments – regulatory concerns appear to be easing
Regulatory uncertainty has been a material overhang for EML Payments’ (ASX:EML) share price since back in mid-May 2021 when the FinTech first informed the market that the Central Bank of Ireland (CBI) had raised significant regulatory concerns relating to the recently acquired Prepaid Financial Services (PFS) business’s anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing (AML & CTF) risk and controls.
The initial market reaction to this unexpected news was nothing short of extraordinary. When the shares resumed trading, investors wiped $875 million (around 45 per cent) off EML’s market cap. EML paid $225 million upfront for Prepaid Financial Services in late March 2020, so the market effectively repriced PFS to zero and devalued the underlying EML business by $650 million. We thought this was an overreaction and bought more stock. Although we acknowledged the risk of PFS losing its European banking license and facing a substantial fine, we saw this scenario as unlikely.
Encouragingly, recent updates on EML’s regulatory correspondence with the CBI suggest that regulatory concerns are easing which we think materially de-risks the investment case.
At the Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on 17 November 2021, EML provided some colour on the CBI’s concerns which mainly relate to PFS’ rapid rate of growth. This is against a backdrop of heightened regulatory scrutiny of the digital payments sector, particularly in Europe. The CBI regards e-money institutions as inherently high risk and expects these institutions to have very strong AML and CTF frameworks in place to mitigate this risk.
Importantly, the CBI has not identified any instances of financial crime, AML or CTF events, nor deficiencies with respect to safeguarding, capital adequacy, or solvency measures.
EML’s AGM update also highlighted that PFS has established a positive working relationship with the CBI and made solid progress on a comprehensive remediation plan to meet the CBI’s concerns. This remediation plan is on track to be substantially complete by Christmas 2021 with any residual items to be finalised by March 2022 and EML expects all outstanding issues will be resolved.
The remediation plan is focused on PFS’ control frameworks and will result in increased overheads (people and systems) to meet or exceed best practice and CBI requirements. In time, EML will look to identify efficiencies to mitigate these higher operating costs. Consensus appears to be factoring in an incremental $5 million of ongoing costs which makes sense to us. Additionally, in FY21 EML took a $11.5 million one-off charge which included provisions for remediation, advisory services related to remediation and a provision for potential fines. So the extent of the cost impact is now understood.
On 25 November 2021, EML announced that the CBI has decided to allow PFS to sign new customers and launch new programs within (undisclosed) material growth restrictions. Considering new program establishment fees are very high margin and the deep pipeline of new programs, this update somewhat eases a key concern for investors; can PFS continue to grow and take on new business? EML has 313 deals within the pipeline representing an estimated gross development value (GDV) of $10.5 billion, potentially worth $40-50 million in revenue in 3 to 4 years’ time (assuming a 40 per cent win rate and a historical yield). To help manage the CBI’s growth concerns, EML has already eliminated some legacy, high volume and low margin programs to create headroom for growth at better margins.
Furthermore, the CBI will not impose broad based reductions in limit control programs, rather the regulator will continue to engage with PFS with a view to agree appropriate limits under its risk management and controls framework. This decision suggests the CBI is acknowledging that programs across different verticals and industries warrant different limits as opposed to taking a blunt instrument approach to the whole program portfolio.
We also learned that the CBI will only impose these growth limitations over PFS’ payment volumes for 12 months or potentially less subject to third party verification that PFS’ remediation plan has been effectively implemented. We view this as a major positive development because it puts a specific timeline on the growth restrictions which is relatively short.
EML operates within a highly regulated industry that is undergoing rapid change and is therefore attracting heightened scrutiny. Although the company has been forced to invest in order to satisfy the CBI’s growth concerns, these costs are now built into market expectations and we see scope for the stock to re-rate as the company demonstrates PFS’ strong growth potential. Despite the recent rally, EML’s share price remains 33 per cent below pre-regulatory concern levels.
The Montgomery Small Companies Fund owns shares in EML Payments. This article was prepared 09 December 2021 with the information we have today, and our view may change. It does not constitute formal advice or professional investment advice. If you wish to trade EML Payments you should seek financial advice.
DAVID SANDERSON
:
Hi Dominic
What is the approximate -ve impact per unit on the Small Company Fund of this situation ?
ie. if EML was at pre problem pricing would units be at higher values ?
Cheers
David Sanderson
Dominic Rose
:
Hi David, thanks for your question. The Montgomery Small Companies Fund has been quite active in EML since the regulatory issues arrived back in May last year which caused the sharp sell-off in the stock, buying more on extreme weakness and realizing profits on any bounce. As such, EML has cost the fund about 90 basis points (from May to December 2021). So yes, the fund’s unit price would be higher had we not owned the stock (about 90 basis points higher, less than 1%). For sure, these externalities are always disappointing when they arrive but that comes with investing. Cheers David.