|
|
|
|
#1
11-27-2007, 04:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Party Poker is up to Something ... which D$D has inside scoop on
[ QUOTE ]
"There was more details discussed than made the papers and published reports" No doubt, there always are. However, I still call "Poseur", for your "Gambling911-like" lack of any specificity or even basis for first hand knowledge. [/ QUOTE ] I make no claims beyond my statements on a stockbroker's view of the OP story, and my personal opinion of the worth of PP to any gaming concern. You are welcome to engage in name calling or cast aspersions on how I choose to present the above claims and your interpretation of my words, but I will not play that game. You want more information about this or any other matter? Again develop your own sources! D$D 
|
|
#2
11-28-2007, 12:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Party Poker is up to Something ... which D$D has inside scoop on
If he is acting on privileged information in deciding to buy or sell stock, then he is breaking the law.
|
|
#3
11-28-2007, 11:40 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Party Poker is up to Something ... D$D has no insider scoop on
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
11-29-2007, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Party Poker is up to Something ... D$D has no insider scoop on
[ QUOTE ]
Would "Tipper liability" apply to people who spread inside information picked up in the non-public "back room buzz", that other people traded on ? [/ QUOTE ] No, they're not considered "insiders".
|
|
#5
11-29-2007, 08:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Party Poker is up to Something ... D$D has no insider scoop on
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.
|
|
#6
11-28-2007, 12:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Party Poker is up to Something ... which D$D has inside scoop on
[ QUOTE ]
If he is acting on privileged information in deciding to buy or sell stock, then he is breaking the law. [/ QUOTE ] He just announced that he wasn't going through with one of his planned December sales. Hard to see how he is breaking any law since he is neither buying nor selling shares. It's not illegal to just decide to hold shares AFAIK. A lot of corporate executives announce December stock sales well in advance so that the markets do not get spooked when they see a executive has sold a block of stock. Most of the time the stock sales are for very legitimate reasons related to personal financial/estate planning. Without any other information, it's hard to read too much into this singular event.
|
|
#7
11-28-2007, 02:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Party Poker is up to Something ... which D$D has inside scoop on
Well, it certainly moved Party back up to 29 from 25, so it created some wealth for him.
|
|
#8
11-28-2007, 03:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Party Poker is up to Something ... which D$D has inside scoop on
[ QUOTE ]
Well, it certainly moved Party back up to 29 from 25, so it created some wealth for him. [/ QUOTE ] Since he isn't selling, that gain is just on paper. Maybe he expects the stock to rocket up or maybe he doesn't have as big a tax liability as he thought so he has no need to liquidate his holdings. I'm no Party apologist, I'm only saying that this is not that unusual a situation among CEOs and there can be other non-Party related factors behind it. I guess I am just saying that I would not make an investment decision in a vacuum based on this type of information by itself.
|
|
#9
11-28-2007, 04:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Party Poker is up to Something ... which D$D has inside scoop on
[ 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.
|
|
#10
11-28-2007, 04:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Party Poker is up to Something ... which D$D has inside scoop on
[ 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 ]
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
