Since the story regarding on-line gambling legislation is the certerpiece of KT's excuses, I thought I would comment on that aspect separately.
First, as has been often pointed out to everyone (except KT apparently) the new law didn't ban on-line gambling in the U.S. because that practice was already illegal. It merely banned credit card companies (and similar payors) from making payments to gambling entities.
THE BILL WAS NO SURPRISE. Everyone on the planet knew about it and knew that it would be passed. The only question was one of exact TIMING and...therefore...how much more money could be fleeced out of the pockets of U. S. citizens before the hammer came down.
Because of that issue, people were willing to bet that the bill wouldn't be passed for X length of time thereby generating X more billions of dollars worth of profit to the companies.
But NO ONE with a double digit IQ...and certainly not Stanley Ho, ever labored under the blatant misconception that
A. On-line gambling was LEGAL in the U.S. or
B. The payment ban would not be passed relatively soon.
As for the "70%" decline in on-line gaming stock prices KT referenced, that was largely not true.
Remember that in any group of public companies there are the strong, viable entities and there are the weak, "false premise" or HYPE stocks. And that is true for the numerous public on-line gaming stocks around the world. (none in the U.S. of course) But the ones that caved in by 70% were JUNK to begin with.
Here is an excerpt from a MSN story about one of the LEADING companies in that group....
"What were the odds of that? The online gambling industry--which rakes in billions from U.S. bettors via companies traded on the London Stock Exchange--rolled snake eyes in July. David Carruthers, CEO of U.K.-based BetOnSports, was arrested during a layover in Dallas en route to his company's facilities in Costa Rica. Carruthers and 10 of his colleagues were hit with a 22-count indictment including fraud and racketeering charges; the feds also got a restraining order preventing the firm from accepting Americans' wagers. News of the arrest, which came just six days after the House of Representatives approved a bill banning the use of credit cards to fund betting accounts, spooked investors in London: BetOnSports stock immediately fell 17 percent, helping to spur a decline in Britain's bellwether FTSE 100 index."
As you will note, although "seventeen" SOUNDS LIKE "seventy" those percentages are actually quite different!!!! (-:
The "new law" excuse is just simply preposterous. As Mr. Carrithers now knows quite well YOU CANNOT RUN AN UNLICENSED GAMBLING OPERATION IN THE UNITED STATES REGARDLESS OF HOW YOUR CUSTOMERS PAY YOU...I.E. CREDIT CARDS, CHECKS OR CASH!!
Regards,
Jim
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/09/01/8384350/index.htm
First, as has been often pointed out to everyone (except KT apparently) the new law didn't ban on-line gambling in the U.S. because that practice was already illegal. It merely banned credit card companies (and similar payors) from making payments to gambling entities.
THE BILL WAS NO SURPRISE. Everyone on the planet knew about it and knew that it would be passed. The only question was one of exact TIMING and...therefore...how much more money could be fleeced out of the pockets of U. S. citizens before the hammer came down.
Because of that issue, people were willing to bet that the bill wouldn't be passed for X length of time thereby generating X more billions of dollars worth of profit to the companies.
But NO ONE with a double digit IQ...and certainly not Stanley Ho, ever labored under the blatant misconception that
A. On-line gambling was LEGAL in the U.S. or
B. The payment ban would not be passed relatively soon.
As for the "70%" decline in on-line gaming stock prices KT referenced, that was largely not true.
Remember that in any group of public companies there are the strong, viable entities and there are the weak, "false premise" or HYPE stocks. And that is true for the numerous public on-line gaming stocks around the world. (none in the U.S. of course) But the ones that caved in by 70% were JUNK to begin with.
Here is an excerpt from a MSN story about one of the LEADING companies in that group....
"What were the odds of that? The online gambling industry--which rakes in billions from U.S. bettors via companies traded on the London Stock Exchange--rolled snake eyes in July. David Carruthers, CEO of U.K.-based BetOnSports, was arrested during a layover in Dallas en route to his company's facilities in Costa Rica. Carruthers and 10 of his colleagues were hit with a 22-count indictment including fraud and racketeering charges; the feds also got a restraining order preventing the firm from accepting Americans' wagers. News of the arrest, which came just six days after the House of Representatives approved a bill banning the use of credit cards to fund betting accounts, spooked investors in London: BetOnSports stock immediately fell 17 percent, helping to spur a decline in Britain's bellwether FTSE 100 index."
As you will note, although "seventeen" SOUNDS LIKE "seventy" those percentages are actually quite different!!!! (-:
The "new law" excuse is just simply preposterous. As Mr. Carrithers now knows quite well YOU CANNOT RUN AN UNLICENSED GAMBLING OPERATION IN THE UNITED STATES REGARDLESS OF HOW YOUR CUSTOMERS PAY YOU...I.E. CREDIT CARDS, CHECKS OR CASH!!
Regards,
Jim
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/09/01/8384350/index.htm
