Party Poker is up to Something

[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.