Gleeson posits that a change in mood from the US authorities may have helped, spearheaded by the attempts of House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Franks to overturn the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act which is likely to be reintroduced to Congress later this (April) month, now that a more enlightened administration is in power. The agreement with PartyGaming was also struck just a couple of weeks after the European Commission complained that the US ban was discriminatory and even a breach of World Trade rules, which is also a positive development.
But at the end of the day it may have been sheer pragmatism that won, observes Gleeson.
He quotes Daily Telegraph writer Alastair Osborne, who wrote earlier: "The US's real motive in passing its King Canute-like anti-gambling legislation was entirely protectionist. It was all about making sure the big, established [land] casinos on the Las Vegas strip weren't overtaken by the nifty online newcomers."
Matthew Goodman in The Times notes: "But Las Vegas has recently hit the wall with gambling revenues falling sharply. So some of its biggest operators, such as Harrahs, the group that owns Caesars Palace, are now thought to fancy a move into online gambling. And a settlement with PartyGaming could be a big step towards full legalisation. The American authorities also seem to have concluded, as they did with Big Tobacco, that it's better to regulate and tax the vice industry than to pursue a ban that is unpopular and difficult to enforce."
Gleeson points out that PartyGaming's $105 million US settlement will put a dent into its cash flow for some years, but make it an overall more attractive proposition for the future. The company has invested heavily in advertising to keep and acquire customers, but it has become apparent that online gambling firms will need to scale up to reduce costs if they are going to survive.
Pulling off a big acquisition will be tough in a market where credit is hard to come by, Gleeson opines before identifying Playtech as probably the best stock in the Internet gambling sector.
"This company provides the platform for gamblers to come together over the internet to play casino, poker and bingo online," Gleeson writes in explaining his choice. "The average daily earnings growth is a healthy 8 percent this year compared with the last quarter of 2008.
"No gambling business is recession-proof, but Playtech is robust: it operates in 45 countries and is expanding into sports betting. A 29 percent stake in William Hill [Online] is also paying off handsomely, with the average daily income from the group 40 percent higher in the first eight weeks of 2009 compared with 2008.
"That helped lift pre-tax profits to Euro 41.45 million last year from Euro 26.85 million the year before," he concludes, observing that Playtech also has a strong pipeline of new potential licensees, with a large number of online gambling groups buying up its software to broaden the range of games they offer.
Gary White of The Daily Telegraph seems to agree: "There are exciting prospects for the [Playtech] group in the next two years," he writes. The shares trade on a modest forward p/e of ten and offer a healthy dividend yield of 5.0 percent.
Reuters news services coincidentally carried the recommendations of broker firm Daniel Stewart, which identified Playtech, William Hill and Sportingbet as its three top "buys" in the online gambling sector.
The broker issued a "buy" recommendation and 64 pence price target on Sportingbet, which rose 5.7 percent to 60.25 pence. The broker highlights Sportingbet's strength in Spain, Greece, and Australia and a number of Eastern European territories, and says it will play an active role in industry consolidation.
Daniel Stewart keeps its "buy" stance and 543 pence target price on Playtech, which gained 0.6 percent to 457.75 pence. It says Playtech has solid expected European upside and strong performance potential in Asia.
The William Hill group is Daniel Stewart's third top pick as a buy, with a 225p price target, saying its discount to the sector following its GBP 350 million rights issue was excessive. William Hill shares were up 0.1 percent to 188p and the rights issue, placed to help the business pay off debt, was a success, although operating profit at financial year-end dipped 1 percent.
All News Categories
- General Gambling News (6875)
- Gambling Law & Society News (3451)
- Casino Games (3081)
- Casino Software (2923)
- Land Based Casino News (461)
- Promotions & Bonuses (304)
- Casino Banking (200)
- Casino Tournaments (111)
- General Poker News (53)
- General Sportsbook News (41)
- General Bingo News (38)
- LCB News (36)
- LCB Approved Casinos (21)
- Casino Warnings (18)
- Bingo Software (11)
- Bingo Games (9)
- Predatory Terms (6)
- Online Poker Tournaments (5)
Most Viewed ArticlesSee all
Live activity feed
"I've been watching the second season of the US version of Secrets and Lies and so far I like it a lot more than the first season. Maybe it's the fact that in the first season I guessed the killer from the very first episode, but the second season seems a lot more interesting to me. I've also started watching Designated Survivor on Netflix and the reason why I find the series appealing is because of Kiefer Sutherland. A very different role for him this time around (compared to the ever popular 24h), I barely recognized him. "READ
"For a double spend to happen, someone has broadcast two transactions that share the same input and total more than the available Bitcoin. They will both appear on the network as unconfirmed until one of them is confirmed. Whichever is confirmed first will work, the other one will eventually be pruned from the network as if it never happened. You won't find any trace of it on most blockchain explorers (like blockchain.info) However blockcypher.com does. This is an example It shows the double spend warning and 0 confirmations since the Bitcoin went somewhere else. The same transaction cant be found on blockchain.info. Example You haven't shown any evidence of a double spend (unless I missed something, which is possible) and I haven't found any myself. Assuming this is the players deposit address: 3JciXUmXr4oAQJxRrL51sbKNmEwM7D9g1B (It is definitely an address controlled by cubits)then there were definitely two deposits for 4 Bitcoin Each about 2.5 hours apart. 2016-10-08 02:06:23 3JciXUmXr4oAQJxRrL51sbKNmEwM7D9g1B received 4 BTC, TXID: 67643826693a43411bce4c51713b0491989d14a1346c93e7f84a21b9291e126c 2016-10-08 04:33:47 3JciXUmXr4oAQJxRrL51sbKNmEwM7D9g1B received 4 BTC95594c914e25ecca361b0885dabc663260e9b6547fdd39307810e2c93bdd2e1a The players main address is 1GjEDytM5bKKYtcrYrrd4oDYMyryCCaQev it sent both 4btc deposits and received a bunch of smaller deposits. These addresses were also used in transactions that shared input or outputs with the 1Gj wallet. (No other addresses were used)16ZjTc2sMwkXhiCPMs99dWfJS3sUEor2ps1LKmAMdi9g8TnzbU5FkYyy8dQZQ9WKe94r1JWii56ECnVBQp32nzrQcKdfDWQt5RkmxL None of them are showing any double spend activity on blockcypher. If there was a double spend attempt, what is the address that a transaction was broadcast to that never confirmed? "READ
lcb activities in the last 24 hours
- new members
- members online
- guests online
- new posts
- free games played