Bookmaker Profits

[MOB]

"You could make the same arguments (regardless of its basis in fact) about, say, lenders targeting spendaholics, drinks companies targeting alcos, fast food companies targeting fatsos, leisure companies targeting layabouts, quack therapists and religions organizations targeting the gullible etc. Hard cases make bad law and, in my opinion, the majority who can make reasonably responsible decisions about consuming the various goods and services on offer should not be penalised by legislation framed to protect the minority who cannot from themselves and their poor decisions."

You could indeed make the same arguments. They are already made and enforced to some extent. That is why, for example, we have restrictions on both alcohol and tobacco advertising. Indeed, though I think myself that some of them go too far, we also have restrictions on advertising by lenders.



"Based on what analysis of hard data? Or is it just a hunch/prejudice of yours?"

Hunch. I don't think we have the technology available to measure aggregate gambling pleasure.


"So maybe the issue here is that solicitors' access to clients' funds should be more strictly regulated and circumscribed rather than targeting the availability of gambling services to the general public or any subset of same? "

This may well be the road we should go - though of course there are downsides. If, for example, client funds had to go into individual escrow accounts, and if joint authority of client and solicitor were then required to release funds, it would add quite a bit to transaction costs (for which the client would ultimately pay) but it would free me from the worry that I will have to put my hand in my pocket again to pay for the transgressions of another solicitor who did not understand the basic concepts of mine and thine.

However, in the meantime, I don't think it at all inappropriate that solicitors (and indeed stockbrokers, auctioneers and others who control large sums of other people's money) should be prohibited- at a minimum - from having a situation where an online gambling facility and client funds are or can be accessed from the same computer.

My own view - which is perhaps a little Spartan- is that people who handle client money should not gamble online, period.

 

[ClubMan]

My own view - which is perhaps a little Spartan- is that people who handle client money should not gamble online, period.

Obviously you should live by your own principles so. But you should not expect others to necessarily do likewise never mind be forced to by legislation.

 

[ubiquitous]

I don't agree. If I give my hard earned money to an auctioneer, solicitor or other deposit-handling business, I don't think its unreasonable to expect the State to take measures to protect my funds. If this means prohibiting the deposit-handler from certain activities, so be it.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Getting back to the OP. The internet has been a marvellous boon to the punter. I think bookies have mixed views. They certainly scramble for a piece of the action, I myself have picked up about €500 in "free" bets in this scramble.

In my youth I used to have the odd bet on the horses. I knew the sums and resented them. Bookies mark-up was about 25% and there was a further 20% tax. Now I can bet on Betfair with a c. 3% mark-up, or if patient, no mark-up at all and 0% tax - yep, the Internet is undoubtedly responsible for the taxman being unable to get his cut.

As for MOB and the temptation to divert client funds to his bookie, what about to his stockbroker? It is rather hard to envisage a solicitor placing 100K of his client's funds on the 2.30 at Redcar, but not at all hard to see him buying 100K worth of XYZ shares.

 

[Mpsox]

"Does the relatively mild pleasure given to many people by the widespread availability of gambling more than outweigh the relatively extreme distress which this availability brings to a small minority?

I must admit that I am not at all sure it does.

.

Change the word gambling in the above quote to any of the following
Drinking
Smoking
the Internet
McDonalds or any fast food outlets
Day trading for shares

Life would be a bit more boring. In fact, why not ban everything that could be harmful to someone?

Seriously, gambling in Ireland is regulated and to me the balance between what is allowed and not allowed whilst not perfect, is not the worst in the world. For example I would not like to see more slot machines and casinos.

 

[Ceist Beag]

Obviously you should live by your own principles so. But you should not expect others to necessarily do likewise never mind be forced to by legislation.

Absolutely agree with this. I'm quite surprised at some of the conservative views on this. With talk often cropping up about this becoming too much of a nanny state what some people are looking for here sounds like just that to me.

 

[ClubMan]

I don't agree. If I give my hard earned money to an auctioneer, solicitor or other deposit-handling business, I don't think its unreasonable to expect the State to take measures to protect my funds. If this means prohibiting the deposit-handler from certain activities, so be it.

As I said above surely the issue is putting in place suitable restrictions on access to the clients' funds (e.g. escrow accounts etc. as suggested above) rather than necessarily circumscribing what activities the professional in question can engage in in his/her role as a private individual? Either way (also as pointed out above) additional regulation in such matters will presumably add to the cost of doing business and to the bottom line as invoiced to the client.

 

[ubiquitous]

As I said above surely the issue is putting in place suitable restrictions on access to the clients' funds (e.g. escrow accounts etc. as suggested above) rather than necessarily circumscribing what activities the professional in question can engage in in his/her role as a private individual? Either way (also as pointed out above) additional regulation in such matters will presumably add to the cost of doing business and to the bottom line as invoiced to the client.

As a regulated professional, I must accept that some of my own activities as a private individual may impact on my professional status, and because of this it is in my interests to avoid such activities.

For example if I was a director of a failed company, or if I was the subject of an undischarged judgement debt or if I was convicted of certain offences outside the area of my work, I would as a matter of routine be sanctioned and disciplined by the body who regulates me.

I can't see how these restrictions add to the cost of my doing business.

 

[Vanilla]

I read the above posts by my colleague MOB with a little horror. More regulation? We surely must be one of the most heavily regulated professions in the country.

I don't believe that my personal freedom should be curtailed by my occupation any more than it already is. I'm not in the least interested in gambling but don't agree that I should not be allowed to do it.

More regulation would also increase the cost of legal services to the average client. Take the example of individual accounts which would need to be signed by both the solicitor and their client to access funds. This would mean at least one more appointment with the solicitor on every purchase, sale, and potentially probate and others. Every appointment will take up more time, because there are individual accounts I can only presume this will entail extra bookkeeping, and all of that would have to add to the costs. It would also be inconvenient for most clients. In my experience people just don't want or or find it hard to take time off work to go to their solicitor. if you take the typical file where a client is drawing downs funds by stage payment on a build you could have an extra 5 or more visits by the client.

 

[ClubMan]

I can't see how these restrictions add to the cost of my doing business.

I would have assumed that additional regulation involved additional costs to the business to ensure compliance? After all that's what the likes of ISME and the SFA etc. are always telling us. Good to hear that this might not actually be the case though. Although Vanilla seems to disagree...

 

[MOB]

Hi Vanilla,

I should say that I am not actually advocating regulation of client accounts in the manner set out above - though I would not personally lose any sleep if such a level of regulation were brought in. (I might add that in my opinion it would certainly add to costs, which would certainly end up borne by clients). I do advocate that a computer in a solicitor's office should not under any circumstances be used to access an online gambling site of any sort. It is not an undue imposition to require that a person who likes to gamble and who also has access to client funds should keep his\her work and his gambling absolutely separate. That is about as far as I would go.

I recognise that mine may not be a consensus opinion on this issue.

Incidentally, Harchibald, I am highly gratified at the suggestion that I might ever instruct my stockbroker to buy €100k of anything. It gives me something to aim at.......

 

[Purple]

What restrictions are in place to ensure that a solicitor treats client funds in an appropriate manner? Does the law society have rules or guidelines in place for this? Recent cases have shown that this is a real issue within the industry/profession.

 

[Vanilla]

What restrictions are in place to ensure that a solicitor treats client funds in an appropriate manner? Does the law society have rules or guidelines in place for this? Recent cases have shown that this is a real issue within the industry/profession.

First of all we are all trained in solicitors accounts as part of our examinations/training.

Secondly we have Solicitors Account Regulations which must be adhered to. These are lengthy and complex. They detail exactly what you must do in your accounts and are extremely strict. At the heart of it all is that obviously you can never allow a deficit on a client account but it is much much more technical and difficult than that.

We have to have Continuing Legal Education - a minimum number of the yearly hours must be in practice management- without which the law society will not issue a practicing cert.

Two yearly month end reports must be done on your accounting system and filed for your audit. Every year every practice is audited by their own auditors who then send a solicitors accounts report to the law society. Unless this is sent every year and on time you will be up for disciplinary hearing and most likely you will have a law society audit. Auditors have their own professional body to account to and their own set of regulations so are not likely to risk their professional integrity by falsifying accounts. Believe me when I say we generally dread the annual audit. Not that I or indeed most solicitors have any misappropriation of funds fear but the regulations are so complex it is easy to make a simple mistake ( I hasten to add which would not affect clients money) that would be a breach of the regulations.

About every three years there is a law society audit. Or there can be an audit if they receive a complaint. These are very thorough.

Any problems in the accounts can lead to fines/disciplinary hearings/being struck off.

Those are the basics we all live by. No matter how much solicitors are regulated there will always be a small percentage of those who will not comply. But that goes for every profession and every business and every walk of life.

Difference being that we are heavily insured and there is a compensation fund available.

 

[MOB]

To what Vanilla has stated, I would add this:

1. I can recall various high profile clients of Elio Malocco on the airwaves moaning and barging about how awful it was that he had been able to take their money. I cannot recall the same publicity being given to the fact that every single former client of that odious person who proved their loss had every single penny refunded by myself and my colleagues in the legal profession. It is the same every time a solicitor does a bunk with client money. If there is someone out there who was a client of an Irish solicitor, who had money in the solicitor's custody, who had the solicitor dishonestly take that money and who has not been refunded in full, I have yet to hear of them.

2. Those who love soundbites will no doubt love the catchphrase, trotted out whenever a solicitor goes bad "this proves that self regulation does not work". But it's not 'self regulation' and it does work. Before doing away with a system which works relatively well, it behoves us to examine the alternatives. Ask any disgruntled former Morroghs clients if they are satisfied with the regulatory regime for client money implemented in the stockbroking sector. If this regime was as comprehensively pro-client as that of the legal profession, Davys, NCB et. al. would have had to make up this shortfall.

 

[Complainer]

To get back on the topic of gambling for a moment, watch out for the Govt to roll over to the betting industry and allow the introduction of the highly-addictive FOBT (fixed odds betting terminals) soon, to take even more money off those who can least afford it.

 

[Duke of Marmalade]

Isn't there a law that bookies can only bet were there is a "skill" factor? The same law which gives rise to these ridiculous tie breakers in newspaper competitions, like who is US President? A. George Bush B. Tony Tree or C. Paul Plant.

But ever go into a PP shop? He has this Lucky Numbers game. There is a big pretence that there is skill involved. The commentator will tell you which number has been the longest not coming out, which number has been most prevalent in the last week etc. etc. How does PP get away with that?

Then there is this really sad nonsense - Virtual Racing. I tell no lie, computerised races, with poor graphics. Where is the skill there?

Of course "non skill" betting games like casino etc. are currently legal on the Internet usually out of Gibraltar or somewhere.

Whilst I tend towards the libertine school I would have some sympathy if "non skill" betting was properly banned.

 

[bond-007]

Whilst I tend towards the libertine school I would have some sympathy if "non skill" betting was properly banned.

I agree that non skill betting should be outlawed. Virtual Racing is a scam pure and simple, no skill involved and the outcome is decided by the bookmaker. It is no more skill than pulling the handle on a slot machine.

The Gaming and Lotteries act is so far out of date. It needs major revision to outlaw all those stupid tie breaker questions, lucky numbers, virtual racing and all forms of non skilled gambling.

 

[z106]

I agree that non skill betting should be outlawed. Virtual Racing is a scam pure and simple, no skill involved and the outcome is decided by the bookmaker. It is no more skill than pulling the handle on a slot machine.

I would disagree with the above statement in that it is no more a scam that betting on anything else with the bookies such as soccer,golf, gaa or whatever else.

I don't think that virtual racing is any more guilty than any other event.

The pioint is that the odds are structured whereby the bookie wins on average in every event.

You can argue that there is more of a skill in betting in say,soccer - but that is incorrect.
If you continue to bet on anything with the bookies, in the long term you will lose.

Be it horse racing, virtual racing, golf or dogs or whatever else - these are all only opportunities for teh bookie to give out bad vale odds.
Virtual racing is no more guilty than any of teh other ones in my book.

 

[bond-007]

Virtual racing can be rigged.

With soccer, horse racing, golf etc the bookie cannot influence the outcome.

 

[z106]

Virtual racing can be rigged.

With soccer, horse racing, golf etc the bookie cannot influence the outcome.

WHy would they rig it ?

Firstly - if they were caught, their reputation would go down the tubes - and i imagine there would be serious financila repercussions.
Hardly worth it for something that brings in only a tiny fraction of their profits

But secondly,and more imortantly, they have no need to rig it.
The odds are structred whereby the punter will lose over the long run.

It's a bit like flicking a coin - if a bookie was to offer odds he would most likely offer 5/6 on heads and harps as opposed to the actual odds of evens.