Punilux
25 Apr 2018
Re: Investment Forum The only fact is that two different papers, who have both campaigned for £2 max stakes, have published two slightly different, unattributed stories. People, other than my original comments, have now started SPECULATING as to how a tax shortfall could be overcome to satisfy the Treasury. There is no INFORMATION at all in any of this, so what are you posting about?
kittermaster
25 Apr 2018
Investment Forum Pyueck is absolutely right. This is an investment forum providing INFORMATION which could help with investment decisions. Opinions waste valuable space.
Punilux
24 Apr 2018
Re: A warning - 5 years on In a share transaction there is a buyer and a seller. Both of them are likely to consider the transaction beneficial. The analysis of who might be right or wrong is unlikely to feature to any great extent in an investment forum. Just look at someone who started arguing with me on the SXX board who considered it to be a certainty that a share valued at 31p would be paying a 20p dividend in a few years time, once a mine had been completed. When I pointed out that the market clearly had reservations about his statement I got some nonsense about how 15 relatives had been born in Leeds. He was opposed to a rights issue to cover the second stage of constructing the mine in the first place, but wasn't quite sure why. The logic of why many people buy shares eludes me. Tax laws are a lot more nuanced than you think. Why do you think that there is no Air Passenger Duty from Belfast, despite it being part of the UK? Everyone would fly from Dublin otherwise. Racing in Northern Ireland is run from Dublin. When there was a discrepancy in tax rates for racing between Eire and NI guess where almost all the bets turned up? Everything ended up being "harmonised". Want to guess whether there will be much difference after Brexit ? Which establishes another territory for online gambling that could be outside HMRC's direct reach.The problem regarding government policy is that because no-one is quite sure what it is we could realistically be importing most of our food in a few years time with One Pound equalling One Euro. There have been purchases of bookies totalling over ten billion Quid over the last few months. Someone, somewhere has the calculation of SkyBet's true value, bet then no one will whether the buyer or the seller is right or wrong for , maybe, years to come. Clearly the buyers do not share your opinions.
pyueck
24 Apr 2018
Re: A warning - 5 years on This is an investment forum and not:a) a place to examine the moral vices and virtues of various investments - whether somebody on here thinks people should be free to gamble what they like or banned it is of little interest to meb) a place to review whether government policy ties in with ones morality or political leaningsc) a place to analyse if government policy is completely logical (I can tell you now it never will be)When I learnt tax I was told a good bit of advice. Stop trying to think whether the tax is fair or moral and just learn the rules.That's the same with this. We could debate morality and politics till we are blue in the face, it will make no difference.What matters is what we think the government will do, rather than what we think they should do. Based on the reports today it appears they are going to heavily restrict stakes on FOBT and potentially increases other gaming related taxes. In my opinion, following on from this there will be pressure to do the same for betting online and for other forms of gambling. And as I said earlier from this sprint there will be a new online multi operator self exclusion service. See gamstop. I think many will sign up and will restrict problem gamblers from excluding themselves from one site and just opening an account on another. Will in my opinion seriously damage online bookmakers.
gamesinvestor
24 Apr 2018
Re: A warning - 5 years on "I can go into the casino and pop £100 on Red etc. Or £1000. I don't think people should be stood over me saying "nah, that's too much matey. No can do".manxman - spot on, the political scene is rife with stupid anomalies. Sugar tax on drinks, and Mary Berry encouraging everyone to make sugary cakes -- durrr!!!Games -- I don't bet, but I had a small wager on WMH this morning on the basis that just about everything gets sold off in panic on any announcement good and bad -- I probably won't be a long term holder of WMH though!!
schwee
24 Apr 2018
Re: A warning - 5 years on Could not agree with you more. Chancellor is well aware that a crackdown on the poor will lead him wide open to accusations that Russians, Chinese and Arabs with their ill gotten gains can continue to gamble unhindered at Crockfords.He also knows that the HMG sponsored National Lottery is far more regressive than these machines. And as the National Lottery was excluded specifically from the recent gambling review, the bookies are almost certain to take HMG to court to try and overturn any £2 limit. No wonder the Chancellor wants a compromise and/or an increase in tax elsewhere which will fall on the middle classes. And they might no be so keen on coughing up.
themanxman
24 Apr 2018
Re: A warning - 5 years on Fair points.Also, you need to remember that this industry is now like banking. It's a cash cow from a Fines perspective.You'll see the bookies hit with indiscriminate fines rotated by company a bit like the regulator rotates through the banking sector.I'm not convinced that the nanny state approach should be applied to this industry any more than it should, say, supermarkets selling alcohol. I can go in to my local supermarket and buy 10 bottles of vodka. No one controls me doing that and I need to take responsibility.I can go into the casino and pop £100 on Red etc. Or £1000. I don't think people should be stood over me saying "nah, that's too much matey. No can do".
pyueck
24 Apr 2018
Re: A warning - 5 years on "From a moral perspective I don't really care."Ok that's fine but that's not my point. The point is that the government is looking to protect problem gamblers and replace reduced tax take on FOBT by increasing other gambling taxes. Therefore it will have a huge impact on WMH.The stake reduction in FOBT is in my opinion welcome, but totally ineffective due to it arbitrarily applying to one form of gambling and not applying it to the same games played online. Eventually i think the regulations will be extended to all 'game based play' and then further investigations will be done on placing limits and restrictions on other forms of betting.For what it's worth I think multi operator self exclusion (which the industry has delayed it's roll out) will actually have a larger impact but has had none of the press coverage.You may not agree with this, but this is how I see it going as the industry has failed to convince government that it can self regulate itself.
themanxman
24 Apr 2018
Re: A warning - 5 years on Interesting observations but you will find addicts in many walks of life. Tobacco, Alcohol, shopping - all things that can lead to financial ruin, mental / physical health issues etc.The FOBT issue is unlikely to settle at £2 IMHO.Behind the scenes I have no doubt that the government have been given a much wider picture in terms of thinking before they simply hammer down a £2 limit. They risk harming the industry from a profit perspective which creates a number of issues:Tax takeClosure of shops and therefore unemployed peopleThe Horse Racing industry - totally reliant on the financial input of the bookies. So there is also a huge industry at risk there too.I get your thoughts on addicts. I know a few gambling addicts. It happens.As an investment, I'd agree that it's risky putting money into this industry at the moment. From a moral perspective I don't really care. You could make a moral case against most companies if you really looked hard enough.
Punilux
24 Apr 2018
Re: Down 12% DYOR! Here is some "speculation". The Culcha department has a massive shortfall because there is over 15% less in the good causes pot than anticipated from the National Lottery. Obviously, the Ministers still want to be photographed with the GB Women's origami team who captured the nation's hearts with their plucky Bronze medal in the recent Commonwealth Games. However, their funding is about to be cut to 50p a year. This won't go down too well with the electorate, but the Chancellor is unlikely to be making up the shortfall just because fewer people are playing the lottery. Furthermore, any tax income will have to be replaced. Two possible "solutions" are putting the National Lottery on ITV, giving it prime time exposure. The other is creating a national pool betting system, not dissimilar to the old Tote, which was sold to Fred Done but whose exclusive rights are about to end. A major problem is that this scheme needs a point of sale. Anyone who has been to Southwell or Wolverhampton midweek will know that by simply using whatever tracks are racing that day are unlikely to produce much more than 50p revenue. Therefore the Dept. of Culcha and free video streaming will need the booky's assistance. Students of results "form" might have noticed that the market normally only responds to the online parts of the annual results. If WMH can walk away from all the time and money spent on Australia , closing a few thousand marginally profitable retail outlets shouldn't be a problem. After all, the US only has a few, specifically targeted retail outlets. Fewer betting shops, fewer betting pools, no money for Britain's female origami warriors. If Hammond had made the decision to allow £2 maximum stake on FOBTs, why wait till after a major national election ? If 65% of the electorate agree with this then surely good news wins votes, even amongst Guardian readers. At a rough guess this looks like a catastrophe waiting to happen . Hammond might let Culcha get their own way and when the chickens come home to roost blame others when the deficit increases after all. What will effect WMH to a far greater extent is the terms that they will be able to continue offshore, online business post Brexit. Playing online roulette, with a possibility of losing £200 a minute, whilst providing "security" for the Maltese might end up being a pefect solution for everyone.
pyueck
24 Apr 2018
A warning - 5 years on 5 years ago i posted the below when WMH was near 450p a share. At the time i got laughed out the room. Responsible gambling wasn't a serious risk to this company according to those on this forum, it was a tick box. Nobody is laughing now. And this is just the start, once introduced before long people will realize it makes no sense to regulate the stakes in a shop for one type of bet but not online and for all types."Is it just me or is there not a huge risk for gambling companies, the elephant in the room that nobody wants to admit.Speak to anybody in the industry and they will tell you that their products are designed for recreational play, they have well developed responsible gambling policies and that while some customers do have problems, for the vast majority of gamblers the pastime is a healthy hobby. They will also tell you that the best way of promoting responsible gambling is regulation which allows gambling to take place in a safe and legal framework, and tax to be raised for government.I think the paragraph above is absolute rubbish and I believe in time the government both in the UK and around the world will realise this. Before anybody invests in gambling I would strongly urge you to realise what you are investing in. Please go into a bookie or watch somebody gambling online. Look at the guy on the FOBT and really ask yourself, does he have a problem as he feeds the machine with notes. Look at the guy storm out after his horse loses and he says he has lost all his money. Go to the deprived areas where many of these offices are located and ask yourself, what is going on. Please ask yourself is that student that has been playing poker till 2am just having some harmless fun or is he setting himself up for a life of pain. Listen to the stories of gambling addicts, the pain it's causes their families and the way their lives have been devastated. While I admit some people who gamble do so safely, for far too many it's a dangerous spiral of addiction. Self exclusion are hard to enforce, and when circumvented the bookies do not refund the self excluded person their money. When self excluded the bookies do little to help beyond sending a link to gamcare.And bookies give tiny amounts to responsible gambling, but profit hugely from gambling addicts.Many will argue that eventually the world will regulate gambling and companies like WMH will clean up. I eventually see the absolute opposite happening. Eventually people will realize that gambling is very dangerous, that online casino's, sports betting, spread betting and poker are hugely addictive that can cause horrendous damage to peoples lives. Governments like Australia were keen to get the tax from gambling, but look now, such huge problems with addiction. There is there a growing lobby group against gambling expansion and I believe it will come to the UK very soon.And let's get one thing clear, the argument that you should regulate gambling to stop it going underground is ridiculous. For an addict it does not matter one bit if the casino is regulated and paying it's taxes, if you lose you lose. regulating gambling, allowing advertising and building a cultural acceptance of gambling you allow many more people to begin gambling (some will become addicts) and give gamblers the confidence to gamble more. While I am sure that if gambling was banned there would be some seedy underground places, the number of current and future addicts would in my opinion be undoubtedly lower.This is not based on a religious view, I used to invest in gambling stocks but I wouldn't now. Firstly morally I cannot bring myself to accept dividends that are financed partly from people with gambling problems and secondly I think eventually gambling companies will face a huge crackdown. In fact I think gambling may boom first, the industry explode in popularity before the world realises it has generated an enormous problem of gambling addicts."
Punilux
24 Apr 2018
Re: Down 12% Stories in Times and Mail are not really that clear. In fact Mail story was published yesterday morning when SP rose. What it looks like is that several Tory MPs have briefed press, saying that they will rebel if stake isn't £2 or £5. Hammond will only sign this through if the Ministry for Culcha and Sporting Events Freebies create another source of income to replace the lost revenue. Both sides appear to be entrenched so it has been kicked further down the road till after the local elections. The Chancellor may, or may not, enforce a decision then. This was supposed to have been sorted out in "a few weeks" following Cheltenham. Although this is a very random sample, whenever I go into a bookies there is unlikely to be anyone playing on a FOBT and I haven't seen an example of machine rage for two years. Luckily all my bets always lose so the shops have alternative revenue sources. Can't they just keep £100 minimum stakes, but only allow the machines to be sited by the third runway at Heathrow?
schwee
24 Apr 2018
Re: Down 12% We have been here before when a minister spoke out of turn. Now it is a rag hardly known for its unbiased opinion.As to the issue, restricting stakes, however desirable, is middle class angst on behalf of the poor. Our former PM, Dave, recognized the dangers when he backed away from a minimum alcohol tax.
gamesinvestor
24 Apr 2018
Re: Down 12% interesting.Does that imply that it's a daily limit or does the punter arrive with a pocket full of change and makes many smaller bets?Games
Regency Green
24 Apr 2018
Re: Down 12% Daily Mail reporting that FOBT max stake to be cut to £2.
