New York State's Off-Track Betting Corp. (OTB) is filing for bankruptcy "as a municipality" under Chapter 9 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code "after four years of losses totaling $38 million."
You read that right: A government-run gambling monopoly has gone broke, after losing money for years.
How was this seemingly impossible feat accomplished? There are clues in stories at Reuters and Bloomberg:
(Reuters) Despite taking more than $1 billion in bets every year, the OTB has been unable to cover its operating costs for years and has accrued liabilities of $220 million.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓(Reuters) A complete shutdown of the OTB would cost more than $600 million, (OTB Head Meyer) Frucher told the news conference. "A shutdown is unthinkable," he said.
(Bloomberg) Last year, the corporation paid winning betters $760.9 million, leaving it with $244.7 million. After providing $93.2 million to the horse racing industry, $20.2 million to local governments and $15.2 million to the state, the corporation was left with $116.1 million of revenue, or less than its $133.9 million of operating expenses.
(Reuters) New York State took control of the OTB from the city last July. In June, Paterson appointed Meyer Frucher head of the organization, which employs 40,000 people across the state.
(Reuters) Adding to the gloom are unfunded liabilities of more than $500 million, most of it related to employee retirement, health and other benefits.
(Bloomberg) The corporation’s biggest liabilities are unfunded payments to 1,366 workers’ pension and health plans, Frucher said. The workforce is represented by District Council 37, New York City’s largest public employee union, whose leaders are cooperating with the plan, he said.
Some context: The Empire State's "All Funds" budget for its 2009-2010 fiscal year is $121 billion. The state's $15.2 million take from OTB is less than 0.013% of that. The budget of New York City, OTB's primary municipal beneficiary, is about $60 billion (see Page 2 at this PDF link).
From here, it seems that OTB probably has hired too many people, paid the people they hired too much, provided overly generous benefits, couldn't eliminate unprofitably outlets, and perhaps fell behind on technology and investment in the future. All in all, as a government operation, it has turned what should be a fairly simple-to-run money pot and into a money pit.
Allowing OTB to file for bankruptcy as a municipality would appear to be a gambit to get around the constraints imposed if a regular corporation files for Chapter 11; otherwise, why do it? Perhaps others have more insight on this, but I would not be surprised if OTB's bankruptcy filing ends up stiffing general and other creditors in the name of preserving as much of workers' accumulated unfunded benefits as possible. While their stories were relatively evenhanded, Reuters and Bloomberg should have explored how this will all work out, and didn't. A "who wins, who loses" breakdown of the type the press frequently employs when a piece of tax legislation, especially a tax cut, comes along would have been quite useful -- especially if they had compared Chapter 9 to Chapter 11.
So what will OTB be like after it emerges? These paragraphs from Bloomberg are not comforting (bolds are mine):
With updated technology, “We could go head to head with pornography and win,” Frucher said, referring to possibilities such as an around-the-clock horse-racing channel or virtual racing.
A reorganization plan, which must be approved by a federal bankruptcy court and state lawmakers, would trim the corporation’s workforce, reduce the number of betting parlors from 68 currently, and introduce technology that might eventually quadruple the $1 billion a year of bets now collected, Frucher said.
It would appear that Frucher is awkwardly expressing is a desire to introduce highly addictive and arguably predatory gambling formats accessible from the comfort of home. Even if the extra money materializes, why should we think that the state isn't setting itself up for a long-term, four times as serious train wreck?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Irony meter pegged
September 2, 2009 - 09:08 ET by UnsaneBut remember, government MUST completely and totally BABY, BABY and BABY the entire population with FREE HEALTH CARE!!!
Ah, the irony...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Calling Geithner!
September 2, 2009 - 09:15 ET by Mica the MagnificentIsn't OTB too big to fail?
Wait a minute, isn't the federal government too big to fail?
Calling China!
Shrieking populism
September 2, 2009 - 09:17 ET by Unsane(sigh) Shrieking populist Sinophobia is still not dead, I see...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
C'mon, Unsane
September 2, 2009 - 09:27 ET by Mica the MagnificentNo Sinophobia here, Unsane.
China owns $1 out of every $10 in U.S. debt according to what I've read.
As long as it isn't Iran buying our treasuries, I don't care WHO buys our debt issues.
Besides, I was just making a JOKE!
(rolls eyes, exhales loudly)
Allow me to clarify
September 2, 2009 - 12:45 ET by UnsaneJoking or not, I get a little exasperated at the whining (in general) about all the debt China owns. So it's China #1, Japan #2, and Russia #3 (in terms of holding U.S. Treasuries). So f***ing what? If we applied vast quantities of pressure to our elected leaders (or, since this Congress doesn't seem to care about that, their replacements in waiting), maybe the debt can be paid off, and that way, China, Japan, Russia...U.S. debt holders...will have other places to put their money.
Good luck with Iran owning any Treasuries...the Treausry Department has been known to go after any Iranian financial transactions made in U.S. dollars, which is a reason they switched to euros as a reserve currency (the Europeans happily do business with the Iranians). But of course, as I type this, I realize that those moves by our Treasury Department occurred under Bush. Hell, who knows what His Majesty The Shahinshah is doing with them.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
I tend to agree with you, Unsane.
September 2, 2009 - 13:03 ET by Kingfish17What exactly is the net worth of the entire United States of America?
When Andrew Jackson was President, he paid off all the federal debt by selling federally owned land. I'm thinking that wouldn't be such a bad idea. At least then it could be developed, given the proper legal framework of course.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
Re Andrew Jackson
September 2, 2009 - 17:12 ET by slickwillie2001I'm all for it, but this time around the proceeds won't touch the debt.
I see no reason for the federal government to own any land with the exception of DC, federal buildings, military bases, and a very limited number of small national parks. The trend of every President creating a handful of new parks and reserves is outrageous. Clinton's creation of the one in Utah to pay off James Riady was criminal.
I'd also like to see states do the same. How much of California's budget deficit could be relieved by selling off state land?
Yeah...That Yellowstone
September 2, 2009 - 17:32 ET by JerYeah...That Yellowstone whoop-de-doo waste of space has been around long enough. Been there...done that. Bor-ing! And those that haven't, well there are plenty of pictures on the internet. Plus, there's some mighty fine timber to be cut and elk to be bagged.
Jer
Response
September 9, 2009 - 08:37 ET by UnsaneI see no reason for the federal government to own any land with the exception of DC, federal buildings, military bases, and a very limited number of small national parks. When they got territories from other countries and via other means, the land was bought by the federal government, thus, they own it. They sold it off, as it was settled, but the whole reason they got it to begin with was the method by which they got it.
Take Nevada. Something like 84% of the state is federally owned. It was once 100% federally owned because it was part of the Mexican Cession. So, why is it still 84% owned by the feds? I suspect that large parts of that 84% is land than no one else wants - much (not all) of NV is desert, after all.
But yes, I agree, things like where Mr. Greatthings declared a parcel of land in Utah off limits - land that had plenty of clean burning coal beneath it - is simply wrong. That kind of thing needs to stop.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
phobo-phobia
September 2, 2009 - 16:06 ET by konoRelax. It's much less about China than about the debt, itself. No matter who held the majority of our debt, we would wax sarcastic at the suggestion that we pile more on top of that.
As for eventually paying off our debt... Check the gubm'nt track record (no pun intended here) with turning a profit on its business ventures and do the math. Pay back our debt? Yeah, dream on. It wasn't plausible even before the pork-barrel orgy they called "the stimulus bill". We'll be lucky if the interest payments alone don't sink us.
Will
September 9, 2009 - 08:41 ET by UnsaneCheck the gubm'nt track record (no pun intended here) with turning a profit on its business ventures and do the math. Pay back our debt? Yeah, dream on. That is much less a math problem than it is a will problem. I'd wager that if we held the politicians' feet to the fire constantly, as is beginning to happen with the Tea Parties - and insisted that while they fund things like the Department of Defense adequately but not, say, junkets, ag subsidies and things such as that - I bet you will have PLENTY of money left over to take good sized chunks out of the national debt.
But that is a matter of the voters' will. Will we force our will upon Congress? We shall see...
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
The government couldn't
September 2, 2009 - 09:21 ET by Willis_Leon_JohnsonRun a previously EXTREMELY profitable brothel in Nevada when the IRS seized the Mustang Ranch for non payment of taxes, they couldn't make a profit and closed it down.
http://gjresult.com
This has to be
September 2, 2009 - 09:22 ET by general companyThe very first Gambling venue that ever filed for Bankruptcy. Figures, considering who ran it
My Gov. thinks I am dangerous, so be careful
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
General Company
September 2, 2009 - 17:33 ET by ahusserThe payouts in the horse racing betting industry are to say the least usurious. The normal takeout is near 20 percent on a straight bet (win, place or show and higher on exactas and other exotic wagering) which is a hard to over come. (most slot machines in competititive venues are in the 7 percent arena and of course state lotteries are near the 50 percent mark). I used to see that NYC OTB payouts for the same races had an additional 10 or more percent taken off. Not competitive by any stretch even within its own industry.
"Somehow, I told you so, just doesn't quite say it." Will Smith in 'I, Robot.'
Turn it over the Genovese Family
September 2, 2009 - 09:23 ET by SickofLibsThey'll be turning a profit in the first quarter.
Spot on.
September 2, 2009 - 10:41 ET by YahooWatcherThe mob could run anything better than the government. I would bet if the feds put out a mob hit on Bin Laden instead of the FBI "reward" money, some guy named Vinny or Eddie would get the job done in less than a month.
Don't Tax Me, Bro.
There is nothing unusual
September 2, 2009 - 09:58 ET by jdhawkThere is nothing unusual about the government running a business into the ground. The unusual is when it doesn't.
The terrifying thing about this is that no one will see the parallels between this, the Social Security fund, the Medicare fund, Amtrak, the United States Post Office, etc. and the proposal before congress to socialize medicine.
If you multiply the above figures in the story by a factor of 10 you get the picture of what it will cost us to socialize medicine in its first year. The figures will go up from there!
Obamacare will make you sick and quite possibly kill you.
Write, call, and/or e-mail your elected representatives and tell them you do not want HR3200 and any derivative to pass in the congress. You do not want socialized medicine. You want government to get the hell out of medicine.
September 2, 2009 - 10:03 ET by jessieHThis is the same govt. that wants to run healthcare. They are betting on a dead horse.
September 2, 2009 - 10:02 ET by jessieHGovernment-run. No wonder they went broke.
Do the socialist math. $25k of revenue per [union] employee!
September 2, 2009 - 10:10 ET by jazboHaha. Their revenues don't even cover their payroll, let alone their (lack of) profits. And being state employees they'll have lovely benefits too.
LOL, I Love these lefty govt business models.
"Democrats; Breeding voters like farm animals since 1962"
Tom, I disagree slightly
September 2, 2009 - 10:18 ET by candanceIt isn't necessarily a matter of hiring too many people or paying them too much. It looks like they made enough revenue to cover their expenses, but the government confiscated whatever amount they wanted before OTB could even meet their obligations.
Even if you paid workers minimum wage and kept expenses at a minimum, it's unfeasible for any company to hand the government 35 million and still stay ahead.
We'd have to dig deeper, but ....
September 2, 2009 - 10:42 ET by Tom Blumer.... if OTB was not obligated to pay income taxes (when it was making money), or even property taxes or sales taxes on purchases (my guess is that they weren't) as other businesses must, those would be big offsets in its favor.
But the bigger point, which occurred to me after the post and ties into your point a bit, is that the cities should have been willing to take less for a while to enable OTB to survive. I'm guessing that going belly-up was the only way to get the situation with the union(s) under any semblance of control.
You may be right on fundamental lack of viability, in which case Bloomberg was right to have tried to shut it down. As much as I don't like a lot of his politics, you can't deny his general business acumen. But the state wouldn't let it happen.
"...it's unfeasible for any
September 2, 2009 - 11:01 ET by onewiseguy"...it's unfeasible for any company to hand the government 35 million and still stay ahead."
A piss-poor excuse. Private business have to pay taxes and yet many are able to be profitable. Dollars to donuts if it had been run privately, it would have been profitable.
OTB
September 2, 2009 - 10:55 ET by easygoerI'm a huge horseplayer so I'm very familiar with OTB here in NY. It's a complete joke from the takeout to the customer service. I also know a few bookies and they marvel at how OTB can lose money. As one of them says; in a ten horse race, someone bets on one, he's got the other nine. Over time how can he lose? Yet somehow OTB manages to do just that. You got to these OTB parlors and they're filthy. I go to my bookies bar and he has reasonably priced drinks, a complimentary and delicious food spread and beautiful bartenders and cocktail waitresses (one rule for female employees, they must show leg) serving the customers. Even if you lose, as most do, you still get something.
An obsessive devotion
September 2, 2009 - 12:48 ET by Unsane(one rule for female employees, they must show leg) I don't suppose you can give me directions to this fine establishment???
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
$2 On The Nose
September 2, 2009 - 11:01 ET by flyingmonkeySo the government couldn't run a gambling entity without going broke.
I would've bet on it!!!
Only the government....
September 2, 2009 - 11:13 ET by Darwin Akbar...could take a business that consists, basically, of people walking through the door and handing you money, and run it into the ground.
I recall it was during the tenure of Mayor David Dinkins that the OTB started to lose money, in no small part due to the inexperienced cretins he'd appointed to run it. They rented expensive storefront space from other Democrat cronies and stuck the city with long-term above market leases.
So, naturally, let's let these same people run our healthcare system.
OTB is a huge success
September 2, 2009 - 11:28 ET by Kingfish17Don't be fooled for one second, NY OTB is a huge success.
1. Tons of money bet by gamblers and a portion of the wagers is taxed by the state.
2. Tons of union employed state workers getting nice sallaries, paying their federal, state and local income taxes, and contributing to the union fund.
3. Tons of "legitimate" political contributions from the union.
4. Tons and Tons and Tons of illegal bribes and kickbacks given to the politicians from the unions and the race track industry.
So every ten years or so the OTB is bailed out by the citizens, the vast majority of whom will NEVER place a bet, and OTB promises to run things more effeciently. Rinse and repeat.
It doesn't get more successful then this.
"I've sentenced boys younger then you to the gas chamber. Didn't want to do it, but I felt I owed it to them." Judge Smails
Not sure what the big deal
September 2, 2009 - 12:22 ET by ckc1227Not sure what the big deal is. Government is simply running this dog park to increase competition, and to keep the private dog parks honest.
the public-track option . . .
September 2, 2009 - 16:57 ET by konoGood snarkastic allusion, ckc.