Party/Bwin - chances for r-entry to US market

[Catfish]

I have invested some money in Party/Bwin stocks a while ago (at a price of 1.328 GBP), because I thought about what might happen if the US market for poker and sports bets were regulated and legalized.
What is your take on the chances of them getting one of the first licenses (if/when legalization ever comes to pass)?

I guess if they did get a license, surely the shares would explode. May not go back to the levels before the closure of the US market (was: 29.9 back in 2005...), but still?

[OnlinePokerReport]

I would bet they'd be in second wave or later as an operator, but they could get in first wave as a services provider.

They exited quickly post-UIGEA and paid their blood money to the DOJ. Shouldn't be any real issues keeping them out for extended period, unless legislation is super-restrictive (which is always a real possibility given that AGA will have lots of "input" on any bill).

[Catfish]

That's what I thought. Their post-UIGEA behaviour should make them a likely candidate for one of the first license.

[GoodKarmaKid]

I would expect Party/Bwin to be a takeover target. Specifically Harrah's or MGM grand corporation/

Probably a good buy at that price. My personal belief is that online poker will be legal in the US approximately 12-18 months after the next presidential election.



Jason

[Catfish]

Well I bought some Partygaming/Bwin at € 1,52. They went up after that, sold yesterday at € 1,84. Made a nice € 2000 profit..
But right now it looks like I should have held on to them - up almost 5% just today (30.).
Anyone know what might have caused the rise?

[leporello]

European Gaming Stocks Soar Due to DOJ Wire Act Ruling

[TheGooner]

The proposed Barton Bill strengthens the UIGEA with a much broader definition of unlawful online gambling than the Wire Act or the current UIGEA. It defines “internet poker” as a form of “unlawful internet gambling” and would make internet poker illegal without a U.S. license. Unlike the vaguely worded UIGEA, this is fairly clear and enforceable.

I don't see that as positive for European companies. It looks like the US govt is lining up for some protectionism - and will only license domestic operators.

[casdir]

I think the industry is heading that way too. Protect and encourge local operators, and stop everyone else from providing online gambling services. Hardly seems fair or legal, but what can you do?

[Grinderschool]

Right but "local" is such a relative term. Party Poker could easily open a business or buy out an existing one to satisfy most conditions for a local online casino/poker room.

The biggest problem is connecting the networks so that players can play against each other from across the globe. I don't mind forcing the companies to be local ones, but I really don't like it when players from one country can only play against each other. It limits the player pool unnecessarily and makes very little sense in an increasingly smaller world.

That said, I'll take anything over the status quo.

[Catfish]

The biggest problem is connecting the networks so that players can play against each other from across the globe.

That is 100% correct. If you look at the situation in France, limitation of player pool is a huge problem. Kind of chokes the game. Plus the taxation problem, the rooms seem to have a hard time making a dime, which is bad for the affs as well.