Neteller Update...
 

This morning Neteller released their 3rd Qtr financial information , their press release contained the following statement from Ron Martin, President & CEO (emphasis mine)...

“NETELLER has performed well during the third quarter of 2006, continuing to grow its business both geographically and extend its reach to new customers and merchants. However, the impact of the recently passed Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in the US is likely to change the future direction and nature of our business fundamentally. While we have continued to see strong sign ups and fees during October, NETELLER is constantly re-examining its position with regard to the US market and its provision of services to that market is currently under review. As previously stated, NETELLER, a company registered outside the US, will comply with the Act and its related regulations as if it were subject to the Act’s jurisdiction. We will keep our shareholders, merchants, customers and employees informed of any developments during this challenging period.”

This is not really new news to those closely following other statements, but it does further reinforce that Neteller is likely to pull out of the US market in the not too distant future.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

yeah, I'm not sure why people think Neteller is going to be around. 2 problems, 1) it would be very easy for the US Government to demand banks not do business with neteller, and 2) THEY HAVE SAID THEY WILL COMPLY WITH THE LAW.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

I guess I should use my points to enter those drawings soon.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
NETELLER is constantly re-examining its position with regard to the US market and its provision of services to that market is currently under review.[/b]

it does further reinforce that Neteller is likely to pull out of the US market in the not too distant future.

[/ QUOTE ]


under review sounds to me like they are keeping their options open and not necessarily pulling out soon.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

I woudnt be surprised if they dump Barclays and find a bank in Antigua or some such place and relocate.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

Too optimistic. If they are disclosing this to investors, its basically a heads up. I'm not in the "sky is falling" camp... Just in the prudent, make other arrangements in case of worst case scenario camp.

My opinion, they would not post negative "possible" news to investors after what happened to poker stocks' shares after pulling out of the U.S. unless it was a serious consideration. Probably not a done deal, but I'm leaning closer to pulling out than not. ;-) Have a backup.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

Suggestions for a backup?

Re: Neteller Update...
 

You over-estimate the abilities and capacities of the Banks in Antigua.

A more likely scenario is a spin-off of the US facing business, operated through a Banking facility in the Mediterranean ..... Ironic how this "anti-terrorism" Act is driving cashflows closer to a Middle Eastern sphere of influence.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

Will they let me use Neteller for the gaming sites that are ALLOWED under the legislation? For instance why wouldn't Neteller (or Firepay which left the US) let me use them to fund Horse Racing, Lotteries or Fantasy Sports? I can legally bet on these in the US so why won't Neteller (or Firepay) let me use them to fund these gaming sites that are allowed under the legislation?

Re: Neteller Update...
 

Foreign bank. Search my previous posts. There was a thread on this I referred to. Someone with a foreign bank account responded to me. I remember there being some "problem" using a canadian bank, but can't remember where I read that. I could be wrong, but the islands are closer to me anyway. As long as you disclose to the treasury and report taxes, there shouldn't be a problem.

Of course, the USA could come after you if they deem you are gambling and decide to prosecute, but I believe someone else stated your tax return could not be used against you due to self incrimination and there has not been any attempts at the government prosecuting "Joe Gambler". I could be wrong with everything, so do your own research...

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Neteller Update...
 

Sure, one alternative is to go through the hassle of opening a foreign bank account so you can keep using Neteller.

Another alternative is to just go with another ewallet. That seems seems a lot simpler to me.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
You over-estimate the abilities and capacities of the Banks in Antigua.

A more likely scenario is a spin-off of the US facing business, operated through a Banking facility in the Mediterranean ..... Ironic how this "anti-terrorism" Act is driving cashflows closer to a Middle Eastern sphere of influence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I wouldnt be surprised if I were wrong either, but since Pokerstars seems to be able to function in spite of this law without pressure from whomever is holding it's money to comply with US regulations, it seems that Neteller may be able to find a similar situation.

We would still have to be able to get our money from our bank TO neteller but if I can transfer from site to site, and I will still be fairly happy.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

1. Its not a hassle
2. Why would I still use Neteller through a foreign bank?
3. Good excuse to go to the islands [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, the USA could come after you if they deem you are gambling and decide to prosecute...

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do people keep posting things like this? The new legislation doesn't change the legality of online poker.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

Dude, don't take my [censored] out of context. Read the rest of the paragraph. It was obviously meant for "chicken littles" and morons like you to respond to. I was simply stating it was a POSSIBILITY as remote as its likely hood of happening may be. Every government official's response has indicated they believe online poker is already illegal so prosecution, though to my knowledge has not happened before and a very small chance of happening, is a possibility. If you read my response, I was indicating it was NOT a concern of mine. I can only imagine what your other 6 posts were about. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I should use my points to enter those drawings soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

just used all 5m of mine last week and for month of oct

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess I should use my points to enter those drawings soon.

[/ QUOTE ]

just used all 5m of mine last week and for month of oct

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess I'll wait until November [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Neteller Update...
 

Simple fact, Neteller doesn't know what it has to do to comply with the law. The situation will remain unclear as long as the new regulations are on the drawing board. Until that time, there's not really much they can or will do IMO. It's a standard boiler plate warning.

I would guess that Neteller is anticipating some sort of regulation that U.S. banks can't do any direct transactions with any entities that do direct transactions with entities that run "gambling" sites. Seems complicated doesn't it? In other words, I'm guessing that Neteller is anticipating the regulations to state that if an e-wallet has direct transactions with a "gambling" site, U.S. banks will not be able to do direct transactions with that e-wallet.

As I've stated several times, I'm fairly certain that the U.S. government will try to make U.S. banks quasi regulators. How far will U.S. banks have to go to make sure that the money leaving the bank is not going to a "gambling" site? I'm sure the U.S. government would like to put as much responsibility as they possibly can on U.S. banks for making sure it's not going to a "gambling" site. I'm also fairly certain U.S. banks will try and have that responsibility limited as much as possible. BluffThis's workaround I think is probably going to be viable more or less. It's just a question of how many people want to jump through the hoops so to speak IMO.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
\As I've stated several times, I'm fairly certain that the U.S. government will try to make U.S. banks quasi regulators. How far will U.S. banks have to go to make sure that the money leaving the bank is not going to a "gambling" site? I'm sure the U.S. government would like to put as much responsibility as they possibly can on U.S. banks for making sure it's not going to a "gambling" site. I'm also fairly certain U.S. banks will try and have that responsibility limited as much as possible. BluffThis's workaround I think is probably going to be viable more or less. It's just a question of how many people want to jump through the hoops so to speak IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
My emphasis in bold: This ignores at least the last four decades of federal regulation of the banking sector. The Federal govt. even under Carter has shied away from increasing expenses and regulation for banks. The banking lobby in this country is mammoth; its niave to expect that they will deliberately increase their own expenses at the cost of their bottom line.

PS If somebody could link me to Bluffthis! workaround I would appreciate it.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

Its kind of obvious neteller will eventually fold.I,im sure like others,have used neteller exclusively since i started playing poker online.I was thinking about firing up a new ewallet service.I know this is all speculation,but in your mind`s what service would you think would have the best odds of staying the course through all this nonsence?Click2Pay?EPassPorte? other?Like i said,i realize this is all guesswork,just would like to hear some thoughts on the options currently available.Obviously,companies could appear to fill this "neteller" void as well.But as the landscape exists now,who looks like the frontrunner to stay in this fight?

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
\As I've stated several times, I'm fairly certain that the U.S. government will try to make U.S. banks quasi regulators. How far will U.S. banks have to go to make sure that the money leaving the bank is not going to a "gambling" site? I'm sure the U.S. government would like to put as much responsibility as they possibly can on U.S. banks for making sure it's not going to a "gambling" site. I'm also fairly certain U.S. banks will try and have that responsibility limited as much as possible. BluffThis's workaround I think is probably going to be viable more or less. It's just a question of how many people want to jump through the hoops so to speak IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
My emphasis in bold: This ignores at least the last four decades of federal regulation of the banking sector. The Federal govt. even under Carter has shied away from increasing expenses and regulation for banks. The banking lobby in this country is mammoth; its niave to expect that they will deliberately increase their own expenses at the cost of their bottom line.

PS If somebody could link me to Bluffthis! workaround I would appreciate it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you totally about the banking industry and the lobby. In fact Sniper posted a link to some statements by Bernanke about not being careful to not have the banks incur too many costs. It wasn't about the UIGE law specifically but to me it's clear that Bernanke, the guy who heads up the key organization in developing the new regulations, that he doesn't want to impose a great deal more overhead on the banks. However, I'm fairly certain (could be convinced otherwise) that the current DOJ would like to do exactly that. I'm fairly optimistic that the new regulations for the banks won't really change things all that much. From my understanding U.S. banks refuse transactions with "gambling" sites now. Obviously the new law seeks to put more responsibility on U.S. banks to make sure that money leaving the bank doesn't go to internet gambling.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

adios, I think we are basically in agreement over what is likely to occur, and on understanding that we really won't know until the Regs at least start being discussed.

That said, I want to comment on this section of your post...

[ QUOTE ]
I would guess that Neteller is anticipating some sort of regulation that U.S. banks can't do any direct transactions with any entities that do direct transactions with entities that run "gambling" sites. Seems complicated doesn't it? In other words, I'm guessing that Neteller is anticipating the regulations to state that if an e-wallet has direct transactions with a "gambling" site, U.S. banks will not be able to do direct transactions with that e-wallet.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's my opinion, that the Regs won't have to prohibit transactions with e-wallets for us to see Neteller remove itself from I-Gaming transactions. At this time, I fully expect that Neteller will act as if it is a bank subject to the Regs... and if the Regs say no business with I-Gaming sites, then Neteller will pull out of those transactions.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

Sniper,

I have said before in my "Phone card in and Neteller out thread" which is in the sticky, that even if Neteller chooses becauseof the regs not to facilitate deposits to poker sites, nothing in the new legislation and thus the regs can prevent them from facilitating cashouts from what I have read re the interpretations of same.

So maybe they won't even want to see if this is an option. But if they do, then should could still continue to have a big part in the business. Most players might not like longer depositing times that will result if all e-wallets get out, but what they like least is long cashout times. Neteller could still fill that role. And I think it is certain that even if the Fed puts the max burden on banks in scanning all outgoing funds, they aren't going to and don't even have a basis to, do so with incoming transactions.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's my opinion, that the Regs won't have to prohibit transactions with e-wallets for us to see Neteller remove itself from I-Gaming transactions. At this time, I fully expect that Neteller will act as if it is a bank subject to the Regs... and if the Regs say no business with I-Gaming sites, then Neteller will pull out of those transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly. Neteller is clearly stating their intention to comply with the upcoming banking regulations as if they were a U.S. financial institution.

You are not going to see UIGEA regs requiring banks to block deposits to e-wallets. People speculating about the banking lobby blocking such regs are overlooking the obvious--they already did it. They got their protections put into the law itself. The UIGEA only provides for blocking illegal gambling sites and their captive financial institutions. Regulations that cause legitimate transactions to be blocked are specifically disallowed. Any UIGEA regulation blocking transfers to independent financial institutions such as typical e-wallets violates the plain language of the law that created it and is unlikely to last long in court.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

Bluff,

First, the majority of people are moving money in and not moving money out [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Second, the problem for successful players is that they use e-wallets to move money from one site to another... which would not be possible in your scenario.

Of course, there may be some players that simply make large deposits into the poker sites and then only have to worry about how to get profits out... but I think this is a minority.... and the value of reload bonuses will go down significantly.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

You are right that the e-wallets greatly facilitate moving money between sites and allowing a shared bankroll instead of having to keep enough on any individual site to be properly rolled for a given stakes.

The big question is whether ACH transactions end up getting filtered or not. If not, then our bank accounts will just have to function as an e-wallet formerly did. The only advantage neteller has now over an e-check is quick transaction time instead of waiting for a transaction to clear.

As I have said in the past, the sports books are the ones with the biggest incentives to come up with creative ways to keep moving the money around. All they need to do is find one honest private bank in a juridiction that won't extradite for this stuff (i.e. Costa Rica, Antigua, etc.), to make a new e-wallet site or provide services just for themselves.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
and if the Regs say no business with I-Gaming sites

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't get it. The regs aren't going to say "no business with I-gaming sites." If that were the obligation then Congress would've put it in the statute and left it at that. That's why they need regs -- more detailed rules about exactly what financial institutions must do to screen and block transactions. The whole point is that it's extremely complicated and, according to the industry, maybe impossible. All Neteller is doing is saying that it will be a good little corporate citizen, so as not to piss off the government for no reason, and then it can decide what exactly it will do once the regs are promulgated.

If I had to bet, my wager would be that Neteller is not going to roll over and right now believes that the regs will not require it to exit the market.

Everyone who says that Neteller's statements are tantamount to saying that it's going to disappear are just plain wrong.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
THEY HAVE SAID THEY WILL COMPLY WITH THE LAW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody knows what THE LAW is going to be or what it's going to require.

So much misinformation . . .

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and if the Regs say no business with I-Gaming sites

[/ QUOTE ]If I had to bet, my wager would be that Neteller is not going to roll over and right now believes that the regs will not require it to exit the market.

[/ QUOTE ]If i had to bet,id bet they are going to roll over and that they believe the exact opposite,but i hope your right.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
THEY HAVE SAID THEY WILL COMPLY WITH THE LAW.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody knows what THE LAW is going to be or what it's going to require.

So much misinformation . . .

[/ QUOTE ]


Hock,

Here's the thing to me although this is a non-lawyer's opinion. Either RIGHT NOW THIS VERY MINUTE the law makes Neteller facilitating transactions to the sites remaining in the US market illegal or it does not. It isn't the regs that define what is legal, but how the law can be enforced. So whether or not the regs are effective in carrying out the legal intent of the law or not doesn't matter as far as just the question of legality. Even if Neteller were to exit the US market later, they would still have broken the law right now. Just like a bank robber who stopped robbing banks and later says since he stopped he shouldn't be considered a robber right now. And ditto for the sites still in the US market who might withdraw later.

Neteller has a good reputation for honesty and security, and if they don't want to have their business gutted or undergo the risk of the DoJ having a contrary legal interpreation than them pre or post regs, then they should be seeking to change their coporate domicile to a friendlier place, and probably as well to take themselves private again. Otherwise some other concern will rise up to fill the void and take that business.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone who says that Neteller's statements are tantamount to saying that it's going to disappear are just plain wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are misunderstanding what Neteller is saying, and the comments posted here.

No one is saying Neteller is going to "disappear"... however, Neteller is saying that its business is likely to be significantly changed by the Regs.

If you have an i-gaming backroll, it is important to stay on top of these statements...

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]

No one is saying Neteller is going to "disappear"... however, Neteller is saying that its business is likely to be significantly changed by the Regs.

If you have an i-gaming backroll, it is important to stay on top of these statements...

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever the optimist, "likely to be significantly changed" could be something like a spin-off of their US facing business into a private company. Of course the simplist interpretation though is that they will bail like Firepay.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

I'm in this business, so trust me I hope neteller stays around. But, from what they are saying and what I am hearing, they won't be.

The arguments about the actual wording of the law, and how e-wallets are exempt, etc is just wishful thinking.

Here's the thing.

Neteller has warned shareholders that there business my be significantly changed. Also, they have said they will comply with the laws, which unlike someone tried to post, HAVE been written.

The law is, financial instituation can not do business with gaming sites. Neteller says they will comply as if they were located in the US.

So do you think if Neteller was located in the US, they would be legal? Uh, no.

I'm done with the subject, but you guys feel free to continue trying to figure out who neteller will still be around, although they've already said they won't be.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
adios, I think we are basically in agreement over what is likely to occur, and on understanding that we really won't know until the Regs at least start being discussed.

That said, I want to comment on this section of your post...

[ QUOTE ]
I would guess that Neteller is anticipating some sort of regulation that U.S. banks can't do any direct transactions with any entities that do direct transactions with entities that run "gambling" sites. Seems complicated doesn't it? In other words, I'm guessing that Neteller is anticipating the regulations to state that if an e-wallet has direct transactions with a "gambling" site, U.S. banks will not be able to do direct transactions with that e-wallet.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's my opinion, that the Regs won't have to prohibit transactions with e-wallets for us to see Neteller remove itself from I-Gaming transactions. At this time, I fully expect that Neteller will act as if it is a bank subject to the Regs... and if the Regs say no business with I-Gaming sites, then Neteller will pull out of those transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe but aren't the banks restricted from doing business with Internet sites now? Don't know for sure.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the thing to me although this is a non-lawyer's opinion. Either RIGHT NOW THIS VERY MINUTE the law makes Neteller facilitating transactions to the sites remaining in the US market illegal or it does not. It isn't the regs that define what is legal, but how the law can be enforced. So whether or not the regs are effective in carrying out the legal intent of the law or not doesn't matter as far as just the question of legality. Even if Neteller were to exit the US market later, they would still have broken the law right now. Just like a bank robber who stopped robbing banks and later says since he stopped he shouldn't be considered a robber right now. And ditto for the sites still in the US market who might withdraw later.

Neteller has a good reputation for honesty and security, and if they don't want to have their business gutted or undergo the risk of the DoJ having a contrary legal interpreation than them pre or post regs, then they should be seeking to change their coporate domicile to a friendlier place, and probably as well to take themselves private again. Otherwise some other concern will rise up to fill the void and take that business.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not how this statute works, actually. The part about sites accepting unlawful internet wagers was effective immediately upon the signing of the legislation. That's why Party and the others pulled out right away. But the part about screening and blocking transactions is not -- all the statute says is that the Fed must draft regulations directing financial institutions about what they must do. Again, nothing in the statute requiring financial institutions to do anything, only directing the Fed to draft regs, which will then define the financial institutions' obligations. The statute also says that financial institutions can't be held liable as long as they follow those regs and provides the Fed with an out to exempt categories of transactions that the Fed deems to be "impractical" to screen or block. So right now financial institutions not only have no obligation to screen and block, they can actually be held liable if they do screen and block (a non-unlawful internet gambling transaction by mistake).

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Neteller has warned shareholders that there business my be significantly changed. Also, they have said they will comply with the laws, which unlike someone tried to post, HAVE been written.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which post states that the laws haven't been written?

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
adios, I think we are basically in agreement over what is likely to occur, and on understanding that we really won't know until the Regs at least start being discussed.

That said, I want to comment on this section of your post...

[ QUOTE ]
I would guess that Neteller is anticipating some sort of regulation that U.S. banks can't do any direct transactions with any entities that do direct transactions with entities that run "gambling" sites. Seems complicated doesn't it? In other words, I'm guessing that Neteller is anticipating the regulations to state that if an e-wallet has direct transactions with a "gambling" site, U.S. banks will not be able to do direct transactions with that e-wallet.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's my opinion, that the Regs won't have to prohibit transactions with e-wallets for us to see Neteller remove itself from I-Gaming transactions. At this time, I fully expect that Neteller will act as if it is a bank subject to the Regs... and if the Regs say no business with I-Gaming sites, then Neteller will pull out of those transactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe but aren't the banks restricted from doing business with Internet sites now? Don't know for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

This part of Hock's response basically answeres this question...

[ QUOTE ]
The part about sites accepting unlawful internet wagers was effective immediately upon the signing of the legislation. That's why Party and the others pulled out right away. But the part about screening and blocking transactions is not -- all the statute says is that the Fed must draft regulations directing financial institutions about what they must do. Again, nothing in the statute requiring financial institutions to do anything, only directing the Fed to draft regs, which will then define the financial institutions' obligations.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why the public poker sites had to pull out of the US immediately, but Neteller can wait for the Regs before taking action.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Which post states that the laws haven't been written?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no law directing financial institutions to screen and block i-gaming transactions. Period. That's what the regs WILL do . . . in some way, shape, or form. See my response to BluffThis elsewhere in this thread.

Re: Neteller Update...
 

isnt neteller used on the horse racing sites? So wouldnt banks still allow trans to neteller

Re: Neteller Update...
 

for those that understand the market better than i.

neteller should be looking for a buyer in a 'e-gambling welcome' country right now, right?