Dear Swedelo: Thanks for the response
I particularly agree with your following points on the core advantages of the WINR system:
In the gaming arena it is important that the gambler know exactly where his funds are kept and that they are assured. [ ie. Visa “credit” transactions do not provide nearly the same level of protection as an international bank account with funds on deposit.]
One of the many selling points of the WINR system to casinos is, that it takes a huge expense away from the casino (accounting, banking, paperwork, personnel, and office leasing to do all this), and puts the entire onus on WINR in that arena. [ According to CFG, this cost savings will more than off-set WINR's 8% transaction fee]
Pursuant to the above, I would like to add:
In my opinion, the WINR business plan creates a marketing advantage for the entire group of casinos it works with. Why visit another gaming site when you can visit the WINR site and enjoy both risk-free banking and (ultimately) dozens of casino options?
Furthermore, I believe that when the explosive growth phase of on-line casinos ultimately subsides, there is bound to be a consolidation. Should the WINR system prove its viability over the first half of 1998, the company seems not only well positioned to lead during the exciting initial phase of the industry's development, but well positioned to lead during subsequent stages as well. Clearly, the above represents one of Mr Skinner's key marketing arguments to all WINR's start-up casino prospects, in addition to the arguments that WINR will save the casinos money in managing the financial and, very importantly, the legal compliance aspect of the business.
Needless to say, I am very impressed with WINR's business plan to become the leading financial services provider to the internet gaming industry.
On competition and industry risks:
WINR is bound to experience competition. However, IMO, given that WINR is already up and running and is partnered with leading European financial institutions, it probably has at least a 1-2 year head start over any competitor. Furthermore, to be worthy, IMO, any competitor will have to have strong international bank ties like WINR. However, such a competitor may find it challenging to find willing partners a least among leading US banks, given that US banks will likely be wary of the pending regulation over internet gambling in the US market (a factor WINR anticipated long ago). IMO, such a view also underscores the major risk factor for WINR. That is, “if” the US should outlaw internet gambling, will this action serve as a precedent for other governments to do the same and thus severely reduce the growth of internet gambling world wide? Unfortunately, I do not have an answer to this question, and doubt that anyone does. All I can say is that considering WINR's favorable near term earnings prospects, its broad international base of clients and prospects, and the length of time required for legislative developments to unfold, the potential rewards for investing in WINR currently appear to outweigh the potential risks. In addition, given the high share price of casino stocks, it appears that the market remains more keenly focused on reported revenues (or, heaven forbid, profits!) than the industry's long term risk factors. Once WINR commences reporting, I would expect its market capitalization to rise to a level more on par for the industry.
Any comment?
Question:
Is the following true?
As far as I follow, CMS (Cyberlink Monetary System) is a member of CLT (Cyberlink Trust, which includes two leading Liechtenstein Banks and one of Germany's largest banks, Commerzbank). CMS offers a debt card which WINR is marketing to on-line vendors in conjunction with its secure internet transaction system.
Is WINR's business strategy towards e-tailing the same as towards internet casinos. For example, a shopper who visits www.shoppingdowntown.com will first have to deposit funds into the WINR system to be credited towards purchases at the associated e-tail sites? I would assume that in exchange for this intermediary service, WINR will receive a % commission off the deposited funds?
If the above is true, would not the WINR system present an undesirable barrier for shoppers from the US, who prefer to simply charge purchases to VISA / MC / AMEX. While I can appreciate the merit of the WINR banking system for casinos, where visitors will definitely want to secure their deposited funds while they gamble, the WINR system's merits are less clear to me in a purchase oriented environment. Why force US internet shoppers to procure a separate debt card for the privilege of shopping on-line? Also, if European shoppers feel secure enough about the confidentiality of using credit cards, might they not also view the CMS debt card as a potential purchasing hinderance as well?
Thanks for your input on these questions!
Best regards,
Scotty
|
