Acquista Criptovalute
Paga con
USD
USD
Buy & Sell
Hot
Supports Visa, Mastercard, SEPA & more
P2P
0 Fees
Flexible trading, zero fees
Gate Card
Use your crypto for payments worldwide
Mercati
Trading
Basic
Advanced
Futures
Futures
Access hundreds of perpetual contracts
TradFi
Gold
One platform for global traditional assets
Opzioni
Hot
Trade European-style Vanilla Options
Conto unificato
Massimizza l'efficienza del tuo capitale
Demo Trading
Introduction to Futures Trading
Learn the basics of futures trading
Futures Events
Join events to earn rewards
Demo Trading
Use virtual funds to practice risk-free trading
Guadagna
Lancia
CandyDrop
Raccogli le caramelle per guadagnare airdrop
Launchpool
Staking rapido, guadagna potenziali nuovi token
HODLer Airdrop
Fai holding GT e ottieni enormi airdrop gratuitamente
Pre-IPOs
Unlock full access to global stock IPOs
Alpha Points
Trade on-chain assets and earn airdrops
Futures Points
Earn futures points and claim airdrop rewards
Investimento
Square
Square
Post, share, and explore crypto trends
Live
moments live
Live crypto market analysis
Chat
Chat with crypto traders
News
What is happening in crypto
flower_head
Altro
Promozioni
AI
Altro
TradFi
WCTC S8
Rewards
PENN

Prezzo Penn National Gaming Inc

Closed
PENN
$17,24
-$0,08(-0,46%)

*Data last updated: 2026-05-04 04:44 (UTC+8)

As of 2026-05-04 04:44, Penn National Gaming Inc (PENN) is priced at $17,24, with a total market cap of $2,30B, a P/E ratio of -2,52, and a dividend yield of 0,00%. Today, the stock price fluctuated between $17,14 and $18,00. The current price is 0,58% above the day's low and 4,22% below the day's high, with a trading volume of 4,54M. Over the past 52 weeks, PENN has traded between $13,65 to $18,24, and the current price is -5,48% away from the 52-week high.

PENN Key Stats

Yesterday's Close$17,46
Market Cap$2,30B
Volume4,54M
P/E Ratio-2,52
Dividend Yield (TTM)0,00%
Dividend Amount$0,62
Diluted EPS (TTM)7,18
Net Income (FY)-$843,10M
Revenue (FY)$6,96B
Earnings Date2026-08-06
EPS Estimate0,32
Revenue Estimate$1,84B
Shares Outstanding131,99M
Beta (1Y)1.327
Ex-Dividend Date2017-06-14

About PENN

PENN Entertainment, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides integrated entertainment, sports content, and casino gaming experiences in North America. The company operates through five segments: Northeast, South, West, Midwest, and Interactive. It operates 44 properties in 20 states; online sports betting in 13 jurisdictions; and iCasino in five under a portfolio of brands, including Hollywood Casino, L'Auberge, Barstool Sportsbook, and theScore Bet. The company was formerly known as Penn National Gaming, Inc. and changed its name to PENN Entertainment, Inc. in August 2022. PENN Entertainment, Inc. was founded in 1972 and is based in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania.
SectorConsumer Cyclical
IndustryGambling, Resorts & Casinos
CEOJay A. Snowden
HeadquartersWyomissing,PA,US
Official Websitehttps://www.pennentertainment.com
Employees (FY)23,44K
Average Revenue (1Y)$296,95K
Net Income per Employee-$35,96K

Penn National Gaming Inc (PENN) FAQ

What's the stock price of Penn National Gaming Inc (PENN) today?

x
Penn National Gaming Inc (PENN) is currently trading at $17,24, with a 24h change of -0,46%. The 52-week trading range is $13,65–$18,24.

What are the 52-week high and low prices for Penn National Gaming Inc (PENN)?

x

What is the price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of Penn National Gaming Inc (PENN)? What does it indicate?

x

What is the market cap of Penn National Gaming Inc (PENN)?

x

What is the most recent quarterly earnings per share (EPS) for Penn National Gaming Inc (PENN)?

x

Should you buy or sell Penn National Gaming Inc (PENN) now?

x

What factors can affect the stock price of Penn National Gaming Inc (PENN)?

x

How to buy Penn National Gaming Inc (PENN) stock?

x

Risk Warning

The stock market involves a high level of risk and price volatility. The value of your investment may increase or decrease, and you may not recover the full amount invested. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results. Before making any investment decisions, you should carefully assess your investment experience, financial situation, investment objectives, and risk tolerance, and conduct your own research. Where appropriate, consult an independent financial adviser.

Disclaimer

The content on this page is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice, financial advice, or trading recommendations. Gate shall not be held liable for any loss or damage resulting from such financial decisions. Further, take note that Gate may not be able to provide full service in certain markets and jurisdictions, including but not limited to the United States of America, Canada, Iran, and Cuba. For more information on Restricted Locations, please refer to the User Agreement.

Other Trading Markets

PENN
CFD
Fai trading

Hot Posts su Penn National Gaming Inc (PENN)

BankruptWorker

BankruptWorker

04-30 15:31
Been following the sports betting landscape pretty closely, and there's something brewing in South Carolina that caught my attention. The state is actually making serious moves on gambling expansion for the first time in a while, which could be a meaningful shift if it gains traction. So here's what's happening: South Carolina lawmakers just prefiled two bills that would fundamentally change the state's gaming stance. HB 3625 is the narrower play—it focuses solely on legalizing sports betting and would create a Sports Wagering Commission to oversee operations. But HB 3353 is the broader bet, proposing a constitutional amendment that opens the door to sports betting plus pari-mutuel horse racing and full casino gaming. The funding model mirrors Mississippi's approach, channeling revenue into infrastructure like highway and bridge repairs. What makes this interesting is the timing. The legislative session kicks off January 14, and both bills are already assigned to committees. HB 3625 goes to Ways and Means, HB 3353 to Judiciary. South Carolina has historically been pretty resistant to gambling, so getting this far is actually noteworthy. If either bill moves forward, it would unlock a new market for operators already positioned in the Southeast. Meanwhile, the broader sports betting sector is showing some interesting patterns. NFL Week 15 hold came in at just 5%—third straight week of underperformance—which suggests sportsbooks are getting squeezed. New York's handle growth has slowed to high single digits as competition intensifies and operators tighten promotions. But here's the thing: analysts like Macquarie are still bullish on the space long-term, specifically flagging DraftKings and Flutter as the best positioned for sustained double-digit growth through 2030. On the operator side, there's been notable activity. Penn Entertainment launched its standalone Hollywood Casino app in Pennsylvania with 700+ games and seamless login integration across its betting platforms. Gaming and Leisure Properties closed a $395M acquisition of Bally's Kansas City and Shreveport properties, with initial rent at $32.2M annually. The deal adds meaningful scale to their portfolio. There's also some regulatory friction worth noting. Entain Australia is facing civil penalty proceedings from AUSTRAC over anti-money laundering violations. The company's been cooperating and implementing system enhancements through June 2025, but penalties could be material depending on the Federal Court's decision. On the analyst side, Deutsche Bank shuffled price targets across the board—mostly due to shifting valuation bases from 2025 to 2026—with upgrades on Wynn, Sportradar, and MGM, while Morgan Stanley downgraded Melco on Macau margin concerns. Barclays and Wells Fargo initiated coverage on Gaming and Leisure and Golden Entertainment respectively, both with constructive outlooks. The South Carolina gambling bills represent exactly the kind of incremental market expansion that keeps this sector interesting. If the state moves forward, it adds another jurisdiction to the growth story, especially for operators already running regional networks. Worth keeping tabs on as January approaches.
0
0
0
0
just_here_for_vibes

just_here_for_vibes

04-30 12:57
Been watching the defense sector lately and there's something worth paying attention to here. Government spending on military tech tends to hold steady regardless of what's happening in the broader economy, which makes defense stocks pretty interesting from a portfolio stability angle. The thing is, defense stocks operate in this unique space where they're less sensitive to economic cycles. You've got steady demand, consistent government contracts, and the kind of revenue streams that don't dry up during downturns. That's the appeal - they provide a cushion when markets get volatile. The trade-off though? Growth potential can be limited compared to cyclical plays that explode during bull runs. Plus there's the political risk factor - government budgets shift with leadership changes, and these companies sometimes face public scrutiny around their contracts. But let me break down two names that have been on my radar. RTX Corporation is a major player in aerospace and defense globally. They're involved in everything from aircraft engines and avionics to cybersecurity and drone systems. What caught my attention recently was their Navy contract through Penn State's Electronics Manufacturing Center - basically working on production optimization for SPY-6 radar modules. The focus on automation and process efficiency could translate to cost savings for the military over time. RTX has had solid momentum over the past couple years in the defense stocks space. Then there's Lockheed Martin. Also a heavyweight in aerospace and defense, but with a broader footprint - military aircraft manufacturing, missile systems, space tech, even energy solutions. They're a cornerstone contractor for the U.S. Department of Defense. Recently they landed a NASA contract worth around $297 million for developing next-generation lightning mapping instruments for NOAA. The contract includes development of two instruments with options for two more. It's the kind of steady, long-term government work that characterizes this sector. Both companies represent the defensive stocks approach to investing - you're not looking for explosive growth here, but rather reliable performance and steady income streams. If you're building a portfolio with some downside protection, these kinds of names are worth monitoring. The government spending backdrop isn't going anywhere, and the technological advancement requirements in defense keep creating opportunities for established players.
0
0
0
0
SelfRugger

SelfRugger

04-30 06:25
Why Meta's addiction trial could be bellwether for similar lawsuits =================================================================== Yahoo Finance Video and Josh Lipton Thu, February 19, 2026 at 8:15 AM GMT+9 In this video: * StockStory Top Pick META +0.61% Meta Platforms (META) CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified before a Los Angeles court on Wednesday in a civil lawsuit claiming the tech giant's social media platforms — such as Instagram and Facebook — harm younger users and get them addicted to the apps. Penn State Dickinson Law associate dean Daryl Lim comes on Market Domination Overtime to explain the points of the case, the criteria jurors will be deciding, and what the case's ruling will ultimately mean for both Big Tech and social media companies. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination Overtime. Video Transcript 00:00 Josh Meta's chief executive Mark Zuckerberg is currently testifying in court in Los Angeles. This is part of a landmark civil lawsuit that accuses Meta's platforms of getting younger users addicted to them and in turn, damaging their mental health. It is a case that could have huge impacts for the future of social media companies. So let's unpack the social and legal issues of the trial. Join me now, we've got Daryl Lim. He is an associate Dean at Penn State Dickinson Law. Daryl, it is great to see you. So, you know, one way this case is kind of being talked about, Daryl and discussed is folks saying this is really kind of like social media's big tobacco moment, Daryl. You know, that's how it's being framed. I'm just curious when you hear that, do you think, you know, that's fair, that's accurate or or no, that sounds exaggerated. I mean, do you do you do you hear similarities, Daryl? 01:12 Daryl Lim Well, Josh, first of all, it's great to be with you. Uh I think there's something certainly to be said about the major shift in how courts are looking at social media companies. Traditionally, these lawsuits against social media companies have focused on content that's posted by users. This case is different because the plaintiffs are arguing that the platform design itself, features that we are familiar with like infinite scroll, like the recommendations that they put out, the notifications, these were intentionally engineered to maximize engagement by users in ways that could have contributed to compulsive use, especially among minors. And legally speaking, that distinction is critical because the claim is no longer just about speech, it's about whether the product itself was designed in a way that created foreseeable harm. So, at its core, the case that you just described really talks about whether social media platforms are more like passive communication tools or are they engineered products that are designed to shape behavior. And if juries conclude that and engagement driven design choices create foreseeable harm, that could fundamentally change the legal responsibilities of tech companies. 02:27 Josh So is the heart of the legal matter, Daryl, um in simple layman's terms, correct me if I'm mischaracterizing, is it okay, jurors have to decide if there was harm and then if there was harm, was that caused by Big Tech's product design or was it caused by third-party content? Because if it's the latter, Daryl, then they have immunity under Section 230. Am I am I framing that correctly? 03:00 Daryl Lim Right. So, you have pointed exactly the nub of the issue. What makes this case different is that it targets platform architecture and not user content. The earlier lawsuits they often fail because of section 230, which protects platforms from liability for third party speech. But Section 230 does not shield companies necessarily from liability for their own product design. and that's exactly what the plaintiffs are arguing that these creatures that I mentioned are design choices that the company itself has made and that shifts the legal question from content moderation to product safety. And that's a fundamentally different legal framework. 03:54 Josh Is there a clear medical definition, Daryl of social media addiction that is accepted by lawyers and physicians? 04:08 Daryl Lim Well, I think this is a quickly moving, evolving landscape. I think what the uh court will decide in this case will help shape that definition. I don't think there's anything that's settled that's bulletproof, that's beyond dispute right now. 04:29 Josh Mark Zuckerberg testifying, Daryl, I'm curious when you have such a high profile CEO take the stand like that. Um what kind of impact, what kind of influence can that have on a case like this on a jury? 04:47 Daryl Lim Uh huge. I think his testimony is critical because these cases will turn on intent and design. And as you mentioned, Mark Zuckerberg has now testified and he's testified that increasing engagement was not it matters goal. That was a key legal defense because intent matters. And if engagement is simply a secondary operational metric, it's there. Uh the defense can argue that the platform was designed for legitimate purposes like communication and connection. In fact, Mark Zuckerberg says the reason why users are as engaged as they are is because they see value in the design of the system. It's not that it's engineered to promote addiction. And that is a uh a dueling narrative that the plaintiffs will have to respond to. 05:43 Josh Let's say Daryl, the jury does ultimately side with the plaintiff. What could that mean for these big tech companies? I mean, what what are we talking about here? Is it big financial liabilities, Daryl, is it uh changing the algorithm? What what are some possible consequences? 06:05 Daryl Lim Well, you know, this trial is widely viewed as a bellwether for hundreds of similar lawsuits and that verdict could influence how courts across the country look at platform design and liability. And of course, as you rightly alluded to, this could mean uh huge damages potentially, but I think more importantly for the companies as a business proposition, these design choices could carry legal liability risks. They could be walking into an unknown minefield. It could encourage companies to redesign engagement features, it could encourage them to implement stronger safeguards. all that sounds good, but it it means that we are starting a domino effect of which we don't know what's going to happen eventually. But importantly, this could also accelerate what's already brewing in the regulatory space of lawmakers, uh thinking of introducing clearer standards for transparency and youth protection. So there's going to be, I think uh the beginnings of a structural shift on how digital platforms are designed and governed not just in this country, but often because what happens in this country ripples out to the rest of the world, it's going to have global impact as well. 07:22 Josh Yeah, that I guess my last question, Daryl, kind of leading me where I was going because I, I was going to ask, okay, well on the other hand, let's say the company wins, Zuckerberg comes out on top. I guess would that really be a win, Daryl or are you saying, listen, you're, you're inevitably you're going to see more lawsuits, tougher regulatory oversight is on the way. 07:49 Daryl Lim I think you put it well, uh what first of all, a win at the court is still a win at the court, whether it's going to signal is that courts will remain cautious about expanding liability for emerging technology. And then I think you have seen as a consistent uh trend in how it has approached other issues. But even in that scenario, that trend towards platform accountability will continue whether from regulators, whether from public pressure, whether from Congress and this is really the first of a long battle that we will see between tech companies and users and all the other stakeholders involved in this enterprise. 08:52 Josh Big, important, complicated story. Daryl, thanks for helping us think through it. Appreciate it. 09:02 Daryl Lim My pleasure. Terms and Privacy Policy Privacy Dashboard More Info
0
0
0
0