Party Poker is up to Something

[daedalus]

...There's something happening here......

[ QUOTE ]
PartyGaming CEO halts share sale, takes options

Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:06 PM GMT

LONDON, Nov 26 (Reuters) - The world's biggest listed online gaming firm, PartyGaming (PRTY.L: Quote, Profile , Research), said on Monday its chief executive, Mitch Garber, had taken options for 3.5 million shares and reversed previous plans to sell a chunk of stock.

Under his planned sale programme, Garber was to have sold shares between Dec. 19 and Dec. 31. He now holds 8.75 million shares in the firm, more than double the amount he is obliged to hold under his contract.

PartyGaming is waiting for a decision from U.S. authorities on its punishment for taking bets from U.S. gamblers last year before the law was clarified in October.

PartyGaming shares were up 2 percent by 1255 GMT. (Reporting by Marc Jones; Editing by Paul Bolding



[/ QUOTE ]


Reuters Link (http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=hotStocksNews&storyID=2 007-11-26T130623Z_01_L26630772_RTRIDST_0_PARTYGAMING-SHARES.XML)

[Barrin6]

Yea, I read that. But what exactly does that mean?

[crzylgs]

He thinks the stock is going up. I wouldn't read too much into it though-- it could just mean they're expecting good quarterlies or something.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Yea, I read that. But what exactly does that mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

It means he no longer sees a profit from dumping his existing stock and sees value in exercising some options he owns.

Given the back room buzz in LV, at the recent convention, I'd say the talks are progressing nicely.


D$D

[Mr Sarcastic]

"Given the back room buzz in LV..."

Okay, Perez Hilton, tell us you were there to hear it.

(Given the recent Harrahs reported run at a piece of Rank, your "insider scoop" is a bit dated.)

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
"Given the back room buzz in LV..."

Okay, Perez Hilton, tell us you were there to hear it.

(Given the recent Harrahs reported run at a piece of Rank, your "insider scoop" is a bit dated.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I love sarcasm!

There was more details discussed than made the papers and published reports

I'm no shill nor lover of PP. IMO there software was dog poop, and the owners have an inflated opinion of the value of their aging customer list.

IMO poker players individually and as a group are too greedy for their own good.

Any US based site, with US banking laws controlled easy deposits, would OWN the US poker market and a decent portion of the world on-line market. How long that market share could be defended is highly questionable.

Get your own sources. /images/graemlins/wink.gif



D$D

[Mr Sarcastic]

"There was more details discussed than made the papers and published reports"

No doubt, there always are. However, I still call "Poseur", for your "Gambling911-like" lack of any specificity or even basis for first hand knowledge.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
"There was more details discussed than made the papers and published reports"

No doubt, there always are. However, I still call "Poseur", for your "Gambling911-like" lack of any specificity or even basis for first hand knowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

I make no claims beyond my statements on a stockbroker's view of the OP story, and my personal opinion of the worth of PP to any gaming concern.

You are welcome to engage in name calling or cast aspersions on how I choose to present the above claims and your interpretation of my words, but I will not play that game.

You want more information about this or any other matter?

Again develop your own sources!


D$D

[Doc T River]

If he is acting on privileged information in deciding to buy or sell stock, then he is breaking the law.

[Mr Sarcastic]

Would "Tipper liability" apply to people who spread inside information picked up in the non-public "back room buzz", that other people traded on ?

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
If he is acting on privileged information in deciding to buy or sell stock, then he is breaking the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

He just announced that he wasn't going through with one of his planned December sales. Hard to see how he is breaking any law since he is neither buying nor selling shares. It's not illegal to just decide to hold shares AFAIK.

A lot of corporate executives announce December stock sales well in advance so that the markets do not get spooked when they see a executive has sold a block of stock. Most of the time the stock sales are for very legitimate reasons related to personal financial/estate planning.

Without any other information, it's hard to read too much into this singular event.

[Grasshopp3r]

Well, it certainly moved Party back up to 29 from 25, so it created some wealth for him.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, it certainly moved Party back up to 29 from 25, so it created some wealth for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since he isn't selling, that gain is just on paper. Maybe he expects the stock to rocket up or maybe he doesn't have as big a tax liability as he thought so he has no need to liquidate his holdings. I'm no Party apologist, I'm only saying that this is not that unusual a situation among CEOs and there can be other non-Party related factors behind it.

I guess I am just saying that I would not make an investment decision in a vacuum based on this type of information by itself.

[ThunderEagle]

[ QUOTE ]

He just announced that he wasn't going through with one of his planned December sales. Hard to see how he is breaking any law since he is neither buying nor selling shares. It's not illegal to just decide to hold shares AFAIK.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I read the OP correctly, it was a stock option excerise. That means he has the option on X number of stocks at a given price. If it was his plan to excerise those options and then sell them immediately for market price, and all he has done is decide not to sell them right away then he is buying stock.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He just announced that he wasn't going through with one of his planned December sales. Hard to see how he is breaking any law since he is neither buying nor selling shares. It's not illegal to just decide to hold shares AFAIK.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I read the OP correctly, it was a stock option exercise. That means he has the option on X number of stocks at a given price. If it was his plan to exercise those options and then sell them immediately for market price, and all he has done is decide not to sell them right away then he is buying stock.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he buy and hold? Easier to just not exercise the option until he is ready to sell. Buying and holding will decrease his cash and create a tax liability that will cost him more cash. Unless the options were expiring, this would be a very -EV thing to do.

Here's all I see on the matter. If you have additional info, post it here and I will revise my thoughts if necessary. If 'taken options' means buy and hold in UK speak then I see what you are saying. I interpreted it as he retains the option to buy xx number of shares in the future at a fixed strike price.

[ QUOTE ]
Rueters -- The world's biggest listed online gaming firm, PartyGaming (PRTY.L: Quote, Profile , Research), said on Monday its chief executive, Mitch Garber, had taken options for 3.5 million shares and reversed previous plans to sell a chunk of stock.

Under his planned sale programme, Garber was to have sold shares between Dec. 19 and Dec. 31. He now holds 8.75 million shares in the firm, more than double the amount he is obliged to hold under his contract.


[/ QUOTE ]

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

He just announced that he wasn't going through with one of his planned December sales. Hard to see how he is breaking any law since he is neither buying nor selling shares. It's not illegal to just decide to hold shares AFAIK.


[/ QUOTE ]

If I read the OP correctly, it was a stock option excerise. That means he has the option on X number of stocks at a given price. If it was his plan to excerise those options and then sell them immediately for market price, and all he has done is decide not to sell them right away then he is buying stock.

[/ QUOTE ]

OP: "LONDON, Nov 26 (Reuters) - The world's biggest listed online gaming firm, PartyGaming (PRTY.L: Quote, Profile , Research), said on Monday its chief executive, Mitch Garber, had taken options for 3.5 million shares and reversed previous plans to sell a chunk of stock."


This is a pretty strong PR statement by a CEO.

Insiders in most markets have to announce plans to sell or acquire large holdings.

To reverse previous planned sales and to announce having "taken options" is about as bullish as you can get on a stock short of outright open market purchases. It did not say anything about the terms of the options given. Nor did it say the CEO planned to exercise them. This could simply be an indication of a cash flow problem as anything else.

If he had spent 3.5 million or even the 80 million or so to purchase 3.5 million shares as implied in the story that would be different.

In poker terms he's decided not to cash out some chips from the table or "rat hole" them, and he is acting like he is going to make a big bet. He just hasn't done any real betting yet.


D$D

[fnord_too]

Well, there was a wisp of a rumor that Party was going to be re entering the US market soon (N 82, in one of the AP threads dropped this little bomb shell with an "I'm not going to say anything else so don't even ask" note on the end). No idea what info he was basing that on, but this little tidbit raises my hope slightly (though it is still pretty low).

[Legislurker]

It could also be a way to push income forward if he has to pay a financial penalty as part of a deal with the DOJ.

[Adebisi]

[ QUOTE ]
Would "Tipper liability" apply to people who spread inside information picked up in the non-public "back room buzz", that other people traded on ?

[/ QUOTE ]


No, they're not considered "insiders".

[Doc T River]

It does not matter if he buys, sells, or holds. What matters if those actions (or non-actions) are because of information that he has access to, but the man on the street does not.

[BluffTHIS!]

You all are wasting a lot of time speculating about why Mitch Garber may be selling or buying options or not, and the legal nuances of same. He is just another mediocre executive who is paid too much and definitely isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer. So regardless of why he thinks he's doing something, there's a good chance it's wrong.

[xxThe_Lebowskixx]

[ QUOTE ]
Yea, I read that. But what exactly does that mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

He is manipulating the stock by making it look like he thinks its going up, and then when others buy he is going to sell the [censored] out of it and laugh like Dikshit did when he cashed out before the legislation passed the first time.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, there was a wisp of a rumor that Party was going to be re entering the US market soon (N 82, in one of the AP threads dropped this little bomb shell with an "I'm not going to say anything else so don't even ask" note on the end). No idea what info he was basing that on, but this little tidbit raises my hope slightly (though it is still pretty low).

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me PP has only 2 options; sell their customer lists as their value as an on-going concern is decreasing daily, or hope to salvage some market share if there is movement soon.

IMO the people that think PP might be what it once was are delusional. First of all both the poker community and the poker economy has changed quite a bit. To think that all the "fish" that used to populate PP have simply hibernated and are eagerly awaiting PP to line up to be cleaned after fattening up is a crack pipe dream.

There are things coming in the near future to the on-line world that IMO will change on-line poker again. Eventual US "legal" on-line poker will not turn the clock back to 2005. Yes perhaps your $10 a week recreational players will return but even they have improved their games in bar leagues and home games.

This IMO is why PP is facing such a delima. If they open up like Doyle's Room without a US processor they are no different from anyone else are not "fish friendly." If they wait until '09 or later for clean legislation, they "re-enter" with quite a few new competitors. So now IMO they are just trying to maximize their value to a buyer.


D$D

[Doc T River]

To paraphrase an old saying, there's a fish born every minute. If PP does come back, some of the players will no longer be fish, some of the fish won't come back, but there will be new fish to take their place if the site is a nice one.

But we need PP to come back if only to hear that crazy jingle.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, there was a wisp of a rumor that Party was going to be re entering the US market soon (N 82, in one of the AP threads dropped this little bomb shell with an "I'm not going to say anything else so don't even ask" note on the end). No idea what info he was basing that on, but this little tidbit raises my hope slightly (though it is still pretty low).

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me PP has only 2 options; sell their customer lists as their value as an on-going concern is decreasing daily, or hope to salvage some market share if there is movement soon.

IMO the people that think PP might be what it once was are delusional. First of all both the poker community and the poker economy has changed quite a bit. To think that all the "fish" that used to populate PP have simply hibernated and are eagerly awaiting PP to line up to be cleaned after fattening up is a crack pipe dream.

There are things coming in the near future to the on-line world that IMO will change on-line poker again. Eventual US "legal" on-line poker will not turn the clock back to 2005. Yes perhaps your $10 a week recreational players will return but even they have improved their games in bar leagues and home games.

This IMO is why PP is facing such a delima. If they open up like Doyle's Room without a US processor they are no different from anyone else are not "fish friendly." If they wait until '09 or later for clean legislation, they "re-enter" with quite a few new competitors. So now IMO they are just trying to maximize their value to a buyer.






D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

When PP puts $100 in their accounts and emails/calls them they will come back. If they have easy deposit options they will deposit. Party worked for the average person somehow someway. You can't just dismiss their branding success. Stars would be #2 again in 2 weeks.

[BluffTHIS!]

Party has an aging customer list as noted above, and it's only aging faster. And party's success in reaching the #1 spot was a result of one thing: advertising. Without that advertising, they can't be #1 again unless they offer something stars doesn't like especially good games.

But in absence of massive television advertising, there's no reason to believe party would be any more successful in today's situation than stars is. If the TV networks would show some backbone and fight legal actions and intimidation against .net sites that would be different, but apparently they won't.

[Grasshopp3r]

Here are the numbers on Party: http://www.partygaming.com/investor/financial_summary.html
http://www.partygaming.com/images/docs/072308_Consensus_Forecast_Analysis_2007-2008.pdf

In my opinion, they have been successful in scaling down their costs to their reduced business. They are still growing. They can scale back up quickly. I think that they are also large enough to set up their own deposit services, which would bypass the UIGEA.

The easiest path for them is to sell out to a US company so that they can get back into the US. They can make money outside of the US. They are not going away.

[Legislurker]

Personally, I think they could benefit sharing legal/transaction costs with bwin,888, crypto, and B2b. Don't merge the networks, but work together on a payment processor they would all float public when its feasible. And get in court in the US somehow someway.

[pokerpunchout]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, there was a wisp of a rumor that Party was going to be re entering the US market soon (N 82, in one of the AP threads dropped this little bomb shell with an "I'm not going to say anything else so don't even ask" note on the end). No idea what info he was basing that on, but this little tidbit raises my hope slightly (though it is still pretty low).

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems to me PP has only 2 options; sell their customer lists as their value as an on-going concern is decreasing daily, or hope to salvage some market share if there is movement soon.

IMO the people that think PP might be what it once was are delusional. First of all both the poker community and the poker economy has changed quite a bit. To think that all the "fish" that used to populate PP have simply hibernated and are eagerly awaiting PP to line up to be cleaned after fattening up is a crack pipe dream.

There are things coming in the near future to the on-line world that IMO will change on-line poker again. Eventual US "legal" on-line poker will not turn the clock back to 2005. Yes perhaps your $10 a week recreational players will return but even they have improved their games in bar leagues and home games.

This IMO is why PP is facing such a delima. If they open up like Doyle's Room without a US processor they are no different from anyone else are not "fish friendly." If they wait until '09 or later for clean legislation, they "re-enter" with quite a few new competitors. So now IMO they are just trying to maximize their value to a buyer.






D$D

[/ QUOTE ]

When PP puts $100 in their accounts and emails/calls them they will come back. If they have easy deposit options they will deposit. Party worked for the average person somehow someway. You can't just dismiss their branding success. Stars would be #2 again in 2 weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree. This is the main problem I have with Party detractors saying how Party Poker would not regain share if it came back, ... the people forget the great bonus program Party had. This attracted all kinds of casual players and fish. Party made it simple to deposit $100 or $200 every month and receive 100%, or %50 bonuses on these deposits for playing very little. No other site does this now days. If Party comes back and re-institutes this, or a similar, bonus policy combined with an easy deposit and withdraw option, the fish and casual players will return, and Party could easily be #1 again.

[Legislurker]

The bonus program might bother some players now that its ubergay. Points are too confusing for joe schmoe lose 100 when im drunk. Party wasnt tied to just advertizing. They got internet poker consumerism somehow. People preferred them, and people came back to play again that other sites would have lost.

[daedalus]

....there's really something happening here....

[ QUOTE ]


PartyGaming Could be Taken Private

Reports Suggest
Partygaming, the world's second largest online poker room, rose 1¾p to 29p on speculation that the slimmed down online poker firm will be taken private. PartyGaming was forced to leave the US market (more than 80 per cent of its market) late last year following the passage of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act.

Mitch Garber, PartyGaming CEO, showed some confidence in the company this week by announcing he was stopping the planned sale of some of his shares in the company.



[/ QUOTE ]

They've finally found their 4-function calculators and discovered that they can make more $$ following the PokerStars-Private model vs. the Public Law-Abiding model.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[BluffTHIS!]

Don't believe everything or even most of what you read on that rag G911. They don't care how far away a "report" is from the truth in their rush to be the first to spread gossip, and in their quest to attract more customers to their affiliate and bonus programs for sports betting sites. The proper use of the majority of G911 "reports" is to print them and then use them in the john to wipe your ass.

[Overdrive]

Very interesting article. Gabling 911 always seems to have the best new breaking stories. They are a very reputable website and seem to be always right about what they are reporting.

[daedalus]

There's multiple sources. Looks like G911 picked it up after it emerged in the UK financial rags. Still just a hedge but I like hedges coming from market analysts.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
If they have easy deposit options they will deposit. Party worked for the average person somehow someway. You can't just dismiss their branding success. Stars would be #2 again in 2 weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]

As a publicly traded company if "they" have an easy deposit method, they would face tremendous new competition in the US.

As you state, PP has some value from their "branding" and may regain some market share upon their return. However the longer they wait the economic value diminishes. Additionally if they follow the "wait for clearly legal" corporate strategy they will face increased competition.

I never really cared for PP, but I have spoken to quite a few former PP lovers in the US. A good number have left the on-line market. Some seem quite pissed off at being "abandoned".

IMO the only people really looking forward to PP's return are serious grinders who hope the multitude of fish will return and they will not have to keep playing the tight rocks that currently populate on-line poker.

I play poker because I enjoy the mental challenge, to me it is not much different than reading Constitutional Law texts or "The Universe" series on the Discovery channel. I'm sure if I had an economic incentive my perspective would change. As such I think I can see the "fish's" perspective more clearly than those with other motives.

Just a donk's opinion,


D$D

[Legislurker]

More important is spreading out the rocks/sharks than the pool of "fish". All I need is a table with 6 or 7 worse players, and I can find that still. PP didnt have market share D$D. It WAS the market. On a practical end, if you want to call us sharks or whatnot, poker needs a CONSTANT infusion of cash to feed the rake. PP pumped untold millions into poker via promos and bonuses and just handouts. The other sites are advertizing without pumping in the $. Its hard to nail down, but Party just got the cash flowing, and poker's health followed. The market leader is very important to the market. Right now its Stars
and FT. Both are ham-fisted, and FT has no customer service to speak of. Thats going to have an impact sooner or later.

[KEW]

[ QUOTE ]
More important is spreading out the rocks/sharks than the pool of "fish". All I need is a table with 6 or 7 worse players, and I can find that still. PP didnt have market share D$D. It WAS the market. On a practical end, if you want to call us sharks or whatnot, poker needs a CONSTANT infusion of cash to feed the rake. PP pumped untold millions into poker via promos and bonuses and just handouts. The other sites are advertizing without pumping in the $. Its hard to nail down, but Party just got the cash flowing, and poker's health followed. The market leader is very important to the market. Right now its Stars
and FT. Both are ham-fisted, and FT has no customer service to speak of. Thats going to have an impact sooner or later.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is all very important on what "Party" was..."Party" not only kept "new" players coming in but they kept the money flowing...Not only did Party give away tons of $$$$$ but other sites had to follow...This free monies kept the poker economy fresh and growing..Losing players lasted much longer and slightly losing player became break even or even winning player..This free money had the effect of keeping the small and mid stakes games well stocked with action..With Party gone a post UIGEA bonus money and cash promos are few and far between...

In short Party Poker was a marketing genius and there presence alone had a positive impact on the poker market..

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO the people that think PP might be what it once was are delusional. First of all both the poker community and the poker economy has changed quite a bit. To think that all the "fish" that used to populate PP have simply hibernated and are eagerly awaiting PP to line up to be cleaned after fattening up is a crack pipe dream.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can still log in to Party and look at the tables, or watch videos on any of the training sites and see people playing Party. The tables are still much softer than other main sites available to Americans. There wouldn't be any major need for hoards of hibernating fish to make the site desirable.

And it's hyperbole to say Party and its userbase are just slowly aging and fading. At the time of this post there's about 80 $200 tables running on Party, about 30 $400. There are actually significantly more $1000 games going on on Party than there are on Stars, and one more $2000 game than on Stars. Stars currently has 120k players online.

I have little doubt Party would be #1 in a matter of weeks and at most months if they did reopen to Americans. I'd certainly be there on day 1, and I'm a supernova on Stars.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO the people that think PP might be what it once was are delusional. First of all both the poker community and the poker economy has changed quite a bit. To think that all the "fish" that used to populate PP have simply hibernated and are eagerly awaiting PP to line up to be cleaned after fattening up is a crack pipe dream.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can still log in to Party and look at the tables, or watch videos on any of the training sites and see people playing Party. The tables are still much softer than other main sites available to Americans. There wouldn't be any major need for hoards of hibernating fish to make the site desirable.

And it's hyperbole to say Party and its userbase are just slowly aging and fading. At the time of this post there's about 80 $200 tables running on Party, about 30 $400. There are actually significantly more $1000 games going on on Party than there are on Stars, and one more $2000 game than on Stars. Stars currently has 120k players online.

I have little doubt Party would be #1 in a matter of weeks and at most months if they did reopen to Americans. Their biggest challenge wouldn't be getting the players, but in simplifying depositing. I'd certainly be there on day 1, and I'm a supernova on Stars.

[/ QUOTE ]

If all the anicdotial evidence is true I stand corrected at least three times. Perhaps Party was the one site who cares about the larger "on-line poker community" and because of that is better positioned to recapture any lost US market share.

I was never a fan, but even I might give them a second look, or any site with ease of deposit and withdraw.



D$D

[Legislurker]

Im not sure if Party is what you want D$D. Its not the best software, the nicest lobby, or the best loyalty program. Its just the largest amalgamation of players. Some games/limits they had more than the ret of the net combined. PLHE, limit hilo, nosebleed NLHE. Its not the best mid range grinder site . Its not the most pleasant gameplay. I wasnt a fan of the SNG structure. But they are ruthless when it comes to acquiring players, and have the deepest pockets.

[linuxrocks]

It's ridiculous to say that Party had worst software and SNG structure just because you didn't like it. IMO, their software is no worse than Stars and they must have ironed out a lot more things by now. SNG structure, you can debate all you want, but it was very similar to what Stars has and it's just nit picking.

Overall, PP coming to US is certainly a good thing. It might even cause Stars offering more benefits for players.

[DeadMoneyDad]

[ QUOTE ]


Overall, PP coming to US is certainly a good thing. It might even cause Stars offering more benefits for players.

[/ QUOTE ]

More competition in any form for US players has to be good for the individual players!



D$D

[Legislurker]

Im not saying it was the worst, just that it wasn't the best.
My inner nit didnt like some things, sure, but I played Party
straight up once in a while. Stars and to an extent UB ran much smoother to me. D$D describes himself as a small winning recreational player. Id think ambience, software, and favorable structures would be more important to him. All I care about Party for is to pump [censored] of cash into the poker world. If I deem my time has more EV selecting their offerings, Ill take it. I spent a LOT of time at sites I loathed for the the earnings, and with Party gone, those earnigns suck.