Interesting Conversation with bank guy about implementation of UIGEA

[Hock_]

I think some people seem to be missing the point here: Someone with actual knowledge of the steps that may be necessary to comply with the (anticipated) regs says that they will be difficult to enforce and can probably be worked around easily. I know that may be disappointing to the Chicken Littles out there, but that's what he said.

I can't guarantee he's right. Maybe it's all just an elaborate joke made to make me look silly and Ashton Kucher will jump out from behind my sofa in a minute and you'll all point and laugh. But, as I said, I thought it was somewhat encouraging.

[DocTrock]

A year ago, we had several high quality payment processors. We had Party Poker, we had adds on TV...I even saw PP advertising on Newsmax.com for a week or two. (right wing website)

Now, we have what we have...nuff said.

I am just curious as to why there seems to be such a strident optimism with regard to how UIGEA will be implemented?

Is this the kind of "optimism" that causes people to chase a two outer to the river? Is this the same thing as saying, "I call," when you know your opponent has AA?

There are only a couple things the government does well. One of them is taking away the freedom of its citizens. Since the Patriot act, banking regulations are far easier to implement. I guarantee that the regs will be quite effective, because they don't involve serving citizens, or helping people. They are a grievous intrusion of our liberty and an invasion of privacy. This sort of thing is usually done well by our illustrious gov.

FWIW, I'm cheering for the anti-chicken little crowd. I hope they hit that draw, I really do. However, I'm not as optimistic and am gonna wait for a new, regulated product to hit the US market.

Until then, It's 4-8 at the BM for me.

[Sniper]

[ QUOTE ]
I think some people seem to be missing the point here: Someone with actual knowledge of the steps that may be necessary to comply with the (anticipated) regs says that they will be difficult to enforce and can probably be worked around easily. I know that may be disappointing to the Chicken Littles out there, but that's what he said.

I can't guarantee he's right. Maybe it's all just an elaborate joke made to make me look silly and Ashton Kucher will jump out from behind my sofa in a minute and you'll all point and laugh. But, as I said, I thought it was somewhat encouraging.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hock, you are missing the point... the regs haven't even been drafted, and someone is telling you they will be hard to enforce...

If you said it may take "a while" to implement, ok... but make no mistake... once there are regs, there will be movement to implement & enforce them!

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
If you said it may take "a while" to implement, ok... but make no mistake... once there are regs, there will be movement to implement & enforce them!

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I was trying to be nice, but this is getting silly. I was a lawyer for 10 years at one of the top firms in the country, so I know all about regulations and enforcement and compliance. OF COURSE banks will enforce whatever the regs say. But it doesn't take a genius to guess at what the forthcoming regulations will likely require. In fact, it's not unlikely that banks have been involved behind the scenes in the drafting process. If the regs say "block all #### transactions -- as this guy apparently believes they will -- then what he said is that it will be easy for sites to get around that. [Btw -- that's what regs do -- they go from the generalities of legislation ("block all transactions with gambling sites") to prescribe the specific steps that the regulated entity must take]. IF he's right, and I personally have no idea one way or the other whether he is, then THAT'S GOOD.

Geez.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you said it may take "a while" to implement, ok... but make no mistake... once there are regs, there will be movement to implement & enforce them!

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I was trying to be nice, but this is getting silly. I was a lawyer for 10 years at one of the top firms in the country, so I know all about regulations and enforcement and compliance. OF COURSE banks will enforce whatever the regs say. But it doesn't take a genius to guess at what the forthcoming regulations will likely require. In fact, it's not unlikely that banks have been involved behind the scenes in the drafting process. If the regs say "block all #### transactions -- as this guy apparently believes they will -- then what he said is that it will be easy for sites to get around that. [Btw -- that's what regs do -- they go from the generalities of legislation ("block all transactions with gambling sites") to prescribe the specific steps that the regulated entity must take]. IF he's right, and I personally have no idea one way or the other whether he is, then THAT'S GOOD.

Geez.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like you're missing a big piece of the puzzle here. UBS has no retail banking offerings for the US. Either OP is full of [censored], or the "guy" that he had the "conversation" with is full of [censored].

[BluffTHIS!]

All,

I don't know why this has turned into such a nitfest on Hock. All he has done was relate a chance encounter and some potential info on how the regs are to be implemented and that there is an easy way around. He has already stated he doesn't know this guy, and that as the guy brought it up first, it's unlikely to be a total fabrication. As to Kot's statement above about USB (not UBS), while it seems true from a quick google search that they don't offer retail banking, they do offer various "wealth management" services. Which means somehow their individual clients have to transfer some wealth to them to manage via checks, wire transfers, etc. So even if they rarely or never would come across the kind of transactions mainline retail banks would, they nonetheless will have to have measures in place to comply in the event it's necessary.

Now while I have posted in this thread previously as to why I believe this account Hock relates is likely true, i.e. the regs will be in fact easily circumventable no matter how they are written through a constantly changing account lineup, still of course we won't know until after the regs have been put in place and then we see what happens.

So the bottom line again, whether to the doom-and-gloomers, or the glass-half-full types like myself, is that we just have to WAIT AND SEE. So all we can do is analyze whether the account, *if true* of how the regs will be implemented *might or might not be* circumvented. But it's still speculation EITHER WAY. In a few months we'll know. And in the meantime, why not stop this nitpicking of Hock? He only related something he heard and hasn't been asserting it is 100% correct. He just wanted to pass it along to us and he has. If you think it's highly likely to be BS, then fine. But you really don't need to further interrogate Hock on this, because HE'S JUST A MESSENGER.

[KotOD]

[ QUOTE ]
All,

I don't know why this has turned into such a nitfest on Hock. All he has done was relate a chance encounter and some potential info on how the regs are to be implemented and that there is an easy way around. He has already stated he doesn't know this guy, and that as the guy brought it up first, it's unlikely to be a total fabrication. As to Kot's statement above about USB (not UBS), while it seems true from a quick google search that they don't offer retail banking, they do offer various "wealth management" services. Which means somehow their individual clients have to transfer some wealth to them to manage via checks, wire transfers, etc. So even if they rarely or never would come across the kind of transactions mainline retail banks would, they nonetheless will have to have measures in place to comply in the event it's necessary.

Now while I have posted in this thread previously as to why I believe this account Hock relates is likely true, i.e. the regs will be in fact easily circumventable no matter how they are written through a constantly changing account lineup, still of course we won't know until after the regs have been put in place and then we see what happens.

So the bottom line again, whether to the doom-and-gloomers, or the glass-half-full types like myself, is that we just have to WAIT AND SEE. So all we can do is analyze whether the account, *if true* of how the regs will be implemented *might or might not be* circumvented. But it's still speculation EITHER WAY. In a few months we'll know. And in the meantime, why not stop this nitpicking of Hock? He only related something he heard and hasn't been asserting it is 100% correct. He just wanted to pass it along to us and he has. If you think it's highly likely to be BS, then fine. But you really don't need to further interrogate Hock on this, because HE'S JUST A MESSENGER.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bluff:

Hock_ said "UBS". Not USB. They are distinctly different companies.

[Russ Fox]

Most investment banking houses offer banking services even if they don't have retail banks. You can write checks against your money market funds at a brokerage firm, for example. Thus, they must comply with banking regulations.

This account seems very believable to me.

-- Russ Fox

[disjunction]

Of course you have to factor in that somebody at a dinner party will pretend he's up on the whole story when he only knows his part.

But the rest rings true for these reasons:

(1) It sounds easy and cheap for the banks to implement. No sophisticated software required.
(2) It allows them to tell anyone who asks that they tried, really. They tried.