Why is Party Over -Reacting? A little perspective...

[Mike Haven]

[ QUOTE ]
what does this point to?

[/ QUOTE ]

Could be they see future increases in the share price and want to become multi-multi-billionaires; or that by showing confidence and taking up more shares they will stop the run on sales.

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
So it is not about internet Poker/Gambling persay it about the funding of.

[/ QUOTE ]
The definition of "bet or wager" has changed. It's also made the most harmless state laws morph into federal criminal charges and 5 year prison sentences.

[ QUOTE ]
Poker is still a grey are in US law. It is a game of skill.

[/ QUOTE ] No, poker is definitely a game "subject to chance". But that's irrelevant anyway. All that matters is whether it's illegal under any and all laws where the player resides.

[ QUOTE ]
4. The laws by the US against online gambling with international companys are most likely breaching WTO agreements. They are 'protectionism' as the US does allow gambling in some states and internet gambing (lottery etc..) likewise.

[/ QUOTE ]
That didn't stop them arresting sports book CEOs.

[ QUOTE ]
I know little to nothing about the WTO but that could be the breakthrough we are all looking for.

[/ QUOTE ]
I doubt it.

[ QUOTE ]
So why is Party threatening to pulling out?!
1. A poor snap decision based on the shock passing of the bill.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol

[ QUOTE ]
US citizens will still want to play poker and gamble on the internet - and they will.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very true. But most of the analysis I've read says that this legislation will achieve what it intended - a large reduction in online gambling.

[jb9]

It is vaguely possible that Party has just decided that the US market is not going to be profitable for them (marketing + legal costs + risk of continuing government restrictions > potential profits) and that they would be better off getting out of the US market, cutting costs associated with being there, and redirecting marketing efforts to Europe and Asia (and probably emphasizing their casino games more than their poker games as those will have a better profit margin).

They will absolutely lose revenue in the short term, but if they were going to lose that revenue anyway (due to US government), then it is just smart business to cut their losses now, stop spending money on advertising, and refocus their efforts on other markets.

If they are wrong and the US market is going to keep growing and remain reasonably accessible, then they will have made a big mistake, but it really looks like the US market is going to at least shrink substantially and non-British non-public companies will find it easier to circumvent legal restrictions than Party.

[daveymck]

They could take another view, that in the medium term the US will go down the UK etc route of having licenced rooms.

I would imagine that licences would be more likely to be granted to companies that have not been acting "illegally" than those that have, plus it could leave them open as a takeover target by a US company if things go down that route.

Althogh I suspect that isnt the case but is more down to shareholder protection etc etc. Providing a service that is in essence "illegal" probably isnt the way to go for public listed companies, they can always renter the market once the law is put into action and the reality assessed.

[centgas]

I asked my law lecturer today (UK) during our break. I wasn't that specific, nor was it his area of expertise. He didn't quite understand how a company on foreign soil would worry too much about what forigners do on their web site. Party is on the London Stock Exchange afterall. My questions to him were based around why being a PLC would make a difference, but he couldn't think of any.

BTW if any of the above makes him seem clueless it was a very click and unclear (to him) convo.

[runout_mick]

[ QUOTE ]
Note : Party executives recently exercised options to buy lots of stock at rock bottom prices.

[/ QUOTE ]

How much has stock bounced back since it bottomed?

Might be worth grabbing some, but I won't be liquid for a few weeks. Probably missed an opp...

[junglewarfare]

1. Partys owners are likely content with their several hundered million dollars each and don't want to go to prison for the opportunity to be billionaires. If you have as much in the bank as they do, getting arrested is sort of a giant risk.

2. If you guys think that Party made this announcement to be sneaky and manipulate their stock price, um, there are securities and fraud laws against that. I'd be shocked if that was actually their plan, it would be monumentally stupid.

[scotnt73]

i could be way off but i figure that Party did what it did as a sort of posturing to outrage all the online poker pros and thus get the word out about the bill. since Party made that press release:
1)yes thier stock tanked
2)however i would guess that certain politicians are starting to feel a bit of pressure now from us gamblers but more importantly outside countries.

i for one am not going to play the guessing game yet and say Party made a mistake. they may have and time will tell. ill wait till the dust clears though. to me it looks like the big kid on the block threatening to leave and take his ball home with him to get everyone in line.

yes i moved most my bankroll to netteller. but i left a bit on party and will continue playing there until they no longer accept my business.