Sheldon Adelson’s Last Roll of the Dice May Be His Boldest, , on October 27, 2020 at 4:45 am

Financial News
By High West Capital Partners
On October 27, 2020
In Financial News
Tags:

(Bloomberg Opinion) — No one ever said that the casino industry didn’t involve risky bets. Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire founder of Las Vegas Sands Corp., is considering a $6 billion sale of the Nevada casinos that made his fortune, people familiar with the matter told Gillian Tan and Christopher Palmeri of Bloomberg News.That’s a gutsy move. The casino industry is in the grip of a record slump. Gaming revenues on the Las Vegas Strip were down 39% from a year earlier in August. In Macau, where Sands China Ltd.’s resorts accounted for 61% of its parent’s operating income last year, the year-on-year fall in casino gambling revenues was 90% last month. Singapore, whose Marina Bay Sands hotel forms the third leg of Adelson’s empire, has been closed off to the outside world by coronavirus and is only slowly recovering. After such a run of bad cards, isn’t this a moment to stand pat?Things aren’t playing out that way. Indeed, if anything, Adelson is upping the stakes on a strategy that’s sustained Las Vegas Sands for its 16-odd years as a listed company: betting larger and larger sums on his Asian operations in the hope that returns from the properties will outstrip anything available in Nevada.There are substantial drawbacks involved in that approach right now. The Macau casinos are entirely dependent upon licenses due to expire in 2022. The territory’s government has yet to release details of requirements for license renewals, and there are enormous political risks inherent in the process. Macau is caught in the crossfire of a deteriorating U.S.-China relationship. Thanks to their Macanese resorts, Las Vegas Sands and fellow Vegas mainstay Wynn Resorts Ltd. have the biggest exposure to China and its territories among members of the S&P 500.(1) Macau’s government has long orbited closer to Beijing than Hong Kong ever did, and any vestiges of independence are being squeezed out under President Xi Jinping’s drive to integrate the two territories with mainland Chinese cities as a unified Greater Bay Area megalopolis. Adelson, meanwhile, is politically exposed as one of the most substantial donors to President Donald Trump, China’s leading antagonist in the trade war. A bet that Sands’s licenses will be renewed without extracting crippling penalties is a wager that the diplomatic wildfire razing so many aspects of the U.S.-China trading relationship will leave Macau untouched.Singapore isn’t without problems, either. A lawsuit by a gambler at Marina Bay Sands last year has resulted in a police investigation into how the casino handles players’ money, calling attention to its relationship with the junket operators who provide finance and travel arrangements to bring in high-rolling gamblers.While Singapore’s casino regulator has already closed its investigation, that license is also up for renewal in 2022. Any adverse finding from the police probe or problems renewing its Macau license would complicate efforts to show that Sands has the ethical and financial capacity to keep operating its Singapore gaming floors.One way of spreading those sorts of risks would involve diversifying. Until recently, you could have argued Las Vegas Sands was doing this. Alongside its original core business in Nevada, the company was looking to build a $10 billion resort in Japan as that country opened up its gambling market — but Adelson walked away from that in May.Adelson himself is 87 years old, owns 52% of the company, and was treated last year for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A changing of the guard wouldn’t necessarily be a disaster. Chief Operating Officer Robert Goldstein and Chief Financial Officer Patrick Dumont have long experience managing the company, and if anything, a Las Vegas Sands without Adelson’s close association with Trump may have an easier time of it in Macau. Still, mogul-run casinos carry a fair amount of “key person risk.” Wynn Resorts, whose founder Steve Wynn stepped down as chief executive officer in 2018 after reports in the Wall Street Journal about sexual harassment of employees, has trailed the performance of its rivals ever since.Most importantly, nothing changes the fact that a casino empire focused on four separate jurisdictions just 12 months ago is now looking to place all its chips on two. You can take Adelson’s decision to double the stakes in Macau and Singapore as a sign of his confidence that he holds all the cards, but in truth even he doesn’t know which way the regulators will go. Investors wagering on Sands’s next chapter should remember that, for a skilled player, a strong hand and a bluff can look exactly the same. (1) MGM Resorts International is in a similar position, but its Macau operation is considerably smaller as a share of the group.This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering commodities, as well as industrial and consumer companies. He has been a reporter for Bloomberg News, Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and the Guardian.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.,

Sheldon Adelson’s Last Roll of the Dice May Be His Boldest(Bloomberg Opinion) — No one ever said that the casino industry didn’t involve risky bets. Sheldon Adelson, the billionaire founder of Las Vegas Sands Corp., is considering a $6 billion sale of the Nevada casinos that made his fortune, people familiar with the matter told Gillian Tan and Christopher Palmeri of Bloomberg News.That’s a gutsy move. The casino industry is in the grip of a record slump. Gaming revenues on the Las Vegas Strip were down 39% from a year earlier in August. In Macau, where Sands China Ltd.’s resorts accounted for 61% of its parent’s operating income last year, the year-on-year fall in casino gambling revenues was 90% last month. Singapore, whose Marina Bay Sands hotel forms the third leg of Adelson’s empire, has been closed off to the outside world by coronavirus and is only slowly recovering. After such a run of bad cards, isn’t this a moment to stand pat?Things aren’t playing out that way. Indeed, if anything, Adelson is upping the stakes on a strategy that’s sustained Las Vegas Sands for its 16-odd years as a listed company: betting larger and larger sums on his Asian operations in the hope that returns from the properties will outstrip anything available in Nevada.There are substantial drawbacks involved in that approach right now. The Macau casinos are entirely dependent upon licenses due to expire in 2022. The territory’s government has yet to release details of requirements for license renewals, and there are enormous political risks inherent in the process. Macau is caught in the crossfire of a deteriorating U.S.-China relationship. Thanks to their Macanese resorts, Las Vegas Sands and fellow Vegas mainstay Wynn Resorts Ltd. have the biggest exposure to China and its territories among members of the S&P 500.(1) Macau’s government has long orbited closer to Beijing than Hong Kong ever did, and any vestiges of independence are being squeezed out under President Xi Jinping’s drive to integrate the two territories with mainland Chinese cities as a unified Greater Bay Area megalopolis. Adelson, meanwhile, is politically exposed as one of the most substantial donors to President Donald Trump, China’s leading antagonist in the trade war. A bet that Sands’s licenses will be renewed without extracting crippling penalties is a wager that the diplomatic wildfire razing so many aspects of the U.S.-China trading relationship will leave Macau untouched.Singapore isn’t without problems, either. A lawsuit by a gambler at Marina Bay Sands last year has resulted in a police investigation into how the casino handles players’ money, calling attention to its relationship with the junket operators who provide finance and travel arrangements to bring in high-rolling gamblers.While Singapore’s casino regulator has already closed its investigation, that license is also up for renewal in 2022. Any adverse finding from the police probe or problems renewing its Macau license would complicate efforts to show that Sands has the ethical and financial capacity to keep operating its Singapore gaming floors.One way of spreading those sorts of risks would involve diversifying. Until recently, you could have argued Las Vegas Sands was doing this. Alongside its original core business in Nevada, the company was looking to build a $10 billion resort in Japan as that country opened up its gambling market — but Adelson walked away from that in May.Adelson himself is 87 years old, owns 52% of the company, and was treated last year for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. A changing of the guard wouldn’t necessarily be a disaster. Chief Operating Officer Robert Goldstein and Chief Financial Officer Patrick Dumont have long experience managing the company, and if anything, a Las Vegas Sands without Adelson’s close association with Trump may have an easier time of it in Macau. Still, mogul-run casinos carry a fair amount of “key person risk.” Wynn Resorts, whose founder Steve Wynn stepped down as chief executive officer in 2018 after reports in the Wall Street Journal about sexual harassment of employees, has trailed the performance of its rivals ever since.Most importantly, nothing changes the fact that a casino empire focused on four separate jurisdictions just 12 months ago is now looking to place all its chips on two. You can take Adelson’s decision to double the stakes in Macau and Singapore as a sign of his confidence that he holds all the cards, but in truth even he doesn’t know which way the regulators will go. Investors wagering on Sands’s next chapter should remember that, for a skilled player, a strong hand and a bluff can look exactly the same. (1) MGM Resorts International is in a similar position, but its Macau operation is considerably smaller as a share of the group.This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.David Fickling is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering commodities, as well as industrial and consumer companies. He has been a reporter for Bloomberg News, Dow Jones, the Wall Street Journal, the Financial Times and the Guardian.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinionSubscribe now to stay ahead with the most trusted business news source.©2020 Bloomberg L.P.

,

Instant Quote

Enter the Stock Symbol.

Select the Exchange.

Select the Type of Security.

Please enter your First Name.

Please enter your Last Name.

Please enter your phone number.

Please enter your Email Address.

Please enter or select the Total Number of Shares you own.

Please enter or select the Desired Loan Amount you are seeking.

Please select the Loan Purpose.

Please select if you are an Officer/Director.

High West Capital Partners, LLC may only offer certain information to persons who are “Accredited Investors” and/or “Qualified Clients” as those terms are defined under applicable Federal Securities Laws. In order to be an “Accredited Investor” and/or a “Qualified Client”, you must meet the criteria identified in ONE OR MORE of the following categories/paragraphs numbered 1-20 below.

High West Capital Partners, LLC cannot provide you with any information regarding its Loan Programs or Investment Products unless you meet one or more of the following criteria. Furthermore, Foreign nationals who may be exempt from qualifying as a U.S. Accredited Investor are still required to meet the established criteria, in accordance with High West Capital Partners, LLC’s internal lending policies. High West Capital Partners, LLC will not provide information or lend to any individual and/or entity that does not meet one or more of the following criteria:

1) Individual with Net Worth in excess of $1.0 million. A natural person (not an entity) whose net worth, or joint net worth with his or her spouse, at the time of purchase exceeds $1,000,000 USD. (In calculating net worth, you may include your equity in personal property and real estate, including your principal residence, cash, short-term investments, stock and securities. Your inclusion of equity in personal property and real estate should be based on the fair market value of such property less debt secured by such property.)

2) Individual with $200,000 individual Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had individual income of more than $200,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

3) Individual with $300,000 Joint Annual Income. A natural person (not an entity) who had joint income with his or her spouse in excess of $300,000 in each of the preceding two calendar years, and has a reasonable expectation of reaching the same income level in the current year.

4) Corporations or Partnerships. A corporation, partnership, or similar entity that has in excess of $5 million of assets and was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest in the Corporation or Partnership.

5) Revocable Trust. A trust that is revocable by its grantors and each of whose grantors is an Accredited Investor as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

6) Irrevocable Trust. A trust (other than an ERISA plan) that (a)is not revocable by its grantors, (b) has in excess of $5 million of assets, (c) was not formed for the specific purpose of acquiring an interest, and (d) is directed by a person who has such knowledge and experience in financial and business matters that such person is capable of evaluating the merits and risks of an investment in the Trust.

7) IRA or Similar Benefit Plan. An IRA, Keogh or similar benefit plan that covers only a single natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

8) Participant-Directed Employee Benefit Plan Account. A participant-directed employee benefit plan investing at the direction of, and for the account of, a participant who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the other categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

9) Other ERISA Plan. An employee benefit plan within the meaning of Title I of the ERISA Act other than a participant-directed plan with total assets in excess of $5 million or for which investment decisions (including the decision to purchase an interest) are made by a bank, registered investment adviser, savings and loan association, or insurance company.

10) Government Benefit Plan. A plan established and maintained by a state, municipality, or any agency of a state or municipality, for the benefit of its employees, with total assets in excess of $5 million.

11) Non-Profit Entity. An organization described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, with total assets in excess of $5 million (including endowment, annuity and life income funds), as shown by the organization’s most recent audited financial statements.

12) A bank, as defined in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

13) A savings and loan association or similar institution, as defined in Section 3(a)(5)(A) of the Securities Act (whether acting for its own account or in a fiduciary capacity).

14) A broker-dealer registered under the Exchange Act.

15) An insurance company, as defined in Section 2(13) of the Securities Act.

16) A “business development company,” as defined in Section 2(a)(48) of the Investment Company Act.

17) A small business investment company licensed under Section 301 (c) or (d) of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958.

18) A “private business development company” as defined in Section 202(a)(22) of the Advisers Act.

19) Executive Officer or Director. A natural person who is an executive officer, director or general partner of the Partnership or the General Partner, and is an Accredited Investor as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

20) Entity Owned Entirely By Accredited Investors. A corporation, partnership, private investment company or similar entity each of whose equity owners is a natural person who is an Accredited Investor, as that term is defined in one or more of the categories/paragraphs numbered herein.

Please read the notice above and check the box below to continue.

Singapore

168 Robinson Road,
Capital Tower, Singapore 068912
+65 3105 1295

Taiwan

5th Floor, No. 1-8, Section 5, Zhongxiao East Road, Taipei

Hong Kong

R91, 3rd Floor,
Eton Tower, 8 Hysan Ave.
Causeway Bay, Hong Kong
+852 3002 4462

Australia

44 Martin Place, Sydney 2000 Australia
+02 8319 3232

Indonesia

Millennium Centennial Center, 38th Floor, Jl. Jend. Sudirman Kav. 25
Jakarta 12920, Indonesia

Market Coverage