Bad day in New Jersey.  Yesterday was the first super-hot day of the late spring, with temperatures approaching 100 degrees Fahrenheit.  Creaking power infrastructure reacted in the way we’re unfortunately becoming accustomed to.  It collapsed.  No power for most of our neighbors, no internet or cable TV for us.  Hence the late post.

Graff

According to Bloomberg, the plug was pulled on the Graff Diamonds offering less than two days before the stock was supposed to debut.

I can’t say I was shocked, for several reasons:

–Hong Kong has been pummelled especially badly by selling emanating out of the EU, where another flight to safety by equity investors is in full flower.  It looks almost like last summer.  (Where did they get all the stock?)

–Chow Tai Fook Jewellery (HK: 1929) came public late last year and is now trading at about 2/3rds of the IPO price.  True, 1929 sells mainly chuk kam pure gold jewelry and knickknacks, not diamonds.  But the market is the same–China.

–TIF, whose main problems appear to me to be in the US, nevertheless also reported a deceleration in its China business last quarter.

–I suspect that retail investors in Hong Kong–always important in that market–were especially badly burned by the Facebook IPO.  IF US retail investors got 5x-10x what they expected, Hong Kongers could have gotten double that size.  Hong Kong is a market of veteran stock market participants, so they’ll shrug off their bad treatment by underwriters quickly.  But if I’m correct, they’re still licking their wounds.

–I haven’t tried to locate a copy of the Graff Diamonds prospectus.  My experience is that in Hong Kong these documents weigh a ton, but don’t contain anything like that amount of information.  Besides, they’re not supposed to be available in the US until after the offering.  Media reports do bring up two potentially worrying issues, however.

Apparently, a mere 20 customers make up 50% of revenues.

A large chunk of the IPO proceeds were said to be earmarked for buying diamond inventory from the company’s founding family.  I’d want to know how this inventory is being valued–and how many months’ (years?) sales this represents.  I’d also want to know how the acquisition of the gigantic gems Graff is famous for will proceed from now on.  Does the Graff family act as exclusive agent for the company?  …is the family paid a commission for acquisition?

a paucity of demand

When the IPO was pulled, the underwriters had orders for only half the shares intended to be offered by the company.  In a healthy offering the books would be, say, 5x covered.  A “hot” offering might have books 10x covered.  In Hong Kong, which operates under different rules than the US, 100x isn’t unknown.

my thoughts

In the current economic environment, Graff Diamonds was always going to be a tough sell, especially with the family wanting 25x earnings for its shares.  I think FB did much more to suck the life out of this offering than most brokers would be willing to admit, however.

the Nevada comparison

Let’s compare Macau with Las Vegas.

According to the Nevada State Gaming Control Board, during the three months ending February 29th (the latest figures available as I’m writing this) the Las Vegas strip casinos had revenue of $1.67 billion.  The downtown area of Las Vegas added about a tenth to that.

During the same three months, according to the Macau Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau, Macau casinos took in MOP 72.9 billion, which translates into US$9.1 billion.

On this measure, then, the Macau market is 5x the size of Las Vegas.

gross revenue vs. net

That’s not the whole story, however.

The official figures don’t report the total amounts that are being bet in the market.  Instead, they record the net amount that the casinos win from customers during the period..  The amounts bet are much larger.

We have precise figures for Las Vegas.  On average, gamblers lost 9.6% of the amounts they bet in Las Vegas during December, January and February.  So they actually bet $17.4 billion during that period.

We don’t have comparable official numbers for Macau.  So we have to estimate.  Conveniently, though, virtually the only game played in the SAR at present is high-stakes baccarat, where casino win typically ranges from 2.7% to 3.0% of the money bet.  To err on the conservative side, let’s say that the win over the winter for the Macau market was impossibly high at 4%.  Using that percentage will give us a low-ball figure for total wagers.

In Macau gamblers actually bet $228 billion during the three months.  On this measure, Macau is already 12x the size of Las Vegas.

…potential?

When I began following casino stocks in the early 1980s, casino operators regarded hotels, restaurants and shopping as regrettable necessities (cost centers, in accounting jargon).  They basically gave the food away to draw patronage.  And the more spartan the room, the better.  That way gamblers spent the maximum amount of time in the casinos and not lounging around watching TV.

Since then the Las Vegas industry has been transformed–with a large assist from Steve Wynn and Sheldon Adelson–into a resort destination.  Prior to the Great Recession (and the accompanying Great Overbuilding), non-casino operations in Las Vegas made up about half the total revenue–and about an equal amount of profit.  In other words, by developing Las Vegas as a resort/convention center, the casinos doubled the size of their market.  This is the model Macau wants to copy.

My guess is that, at present non-casino revenue is only about 15% the size of casino win in Macau.  So the nascent resort business in Macau could, if it’s successful in emulating Las Vegas, be at least 3x the current size.  That would mean that–even without market growth–visitors to Macau could be spending half a trillion dollars a quarter and company profits could be close to 2x the current level.

The Financial Times just wrote a good summary of the current supply constrained situation in the SAR.

but there’s more

In its latest quarterly reporting to shareholders, LVS included in its packet of earnings presentation slides an appendix that touches on growth potential for the Macau market.

–Slide 21 illustrates the proposed high-speed rail system that will connect all the major cities, including Macau, in eastern and central China.

–The more interesting slide is #22, which breaks out recent visitors to Macau by domicile.  It shows that 72% come from nearby Guangdong province, an area with a population of 95 million.  Hunan and Chongqing provinces, which together also have a population of 95 million, but which are somewhat farther away, represent less than 7% of visitors so far.   But that number is starting to grow at a much faster than 50% annual clip.  This implies, I think, that the Macau casino market has come nowhere close to tapping its entire Chinese potential.

After the New York close last Wednesday, LVS reported results for 1Q12.  Revenues came in at $2.77 billion, up 30.8% year on year.  Adjusted Earnings Before Interest Taxes and Depreciation/Amortization (EBITDA) was $1.07 billion, up 42% yoy.  Adjusted EPS were $.70.  That was a gain of 89.2% over results in the year-ago quarter.  The figure also came in $.01/share above the highest Wall Street estimate, and $.07/share ahead of the consensus.

the details

EBITDA breaks out into:

$456.4 million in Macau, up 20.6% yoy

$472.5 million in Singapore, up 66.1% yoy

$115.8 million in Las Vegas, up 77.9% yoy

$27.5 million in Bethlehem, Pa., up 24.4% yoy.

three unusual items (all in Macau)

The ” adjusted” figures exclude two of the items:

–$51.5 million in pre-opening expenses for the Sands Cotai Central which opened earlier this month, and

–a $42.9 million writeoff of costs linked to the closing of the Zaia show at the Venetian Macau.

Results did, however, include $13 million of costs associated with retailing–management declined to provide any detail.

market reaction

1928 and LVS have dropped about 5% each on the results announcement, despite the obvious strength in the numbers.  I don’t see why.

True, there are some nits to pick, namely:

–LVS is currently keeping 3¢ of every dollar high rollers are betting in Singapore and in Macau.  History says that should be more like 2.85¢, or 5% less.  at some point the company will have a sub-par quarter or two to make up for the current largesse.  But that’s the nature of the casino business.

–There is the mystery $13 million loss in Macau.  But that’s more like a rounding error than a serious dent in operating income.

–EBITDA margins fell qoq in Macau in March.

On the other hand,

–management wasn’t much more incoherent than usual on the conference call that accompanied the announcement

–US operations are much healthier than they were a year ago

–1928 appears to be gaining market share in Macau, even before the new casino opening. Revenues were up 9% qoq, in a basically flat market.

–the mysterious $13 million shortfall in Macau seems to explain all the EBITDA margin deterioration in the SAR vs. 4Q11.  If management is correct in its diagnosis, this is a non-recurring item.  In addition,

LVS is deleveraging   …fast

At December 31, 2010, LVS had $10.1 billion in debt on its balance sheet plus $710.7 million in preferred stock.  Against that, the company had $3.04 billion in unrestricted cash.

As of March 31st, 2012, LVS has accumulated an extra $1 billion in cash.  All the preferred stock has been redeemed and debt is $200 million lower.

That’s about a $2 billion shrinkage in net borrowings.  At the current level of $1 billion in cash generation from operations per quarter, LVS could be completely debt free by June 2013.  (LVS points out that it could be completely debt free today, if it wanted to be, by selling a chunk of its retail space in Macau.)

next stop Spain?

LVS confirmed that it is deep in negotiations with Madrid and Barcelona to develop a huge casino/resort complex in Spain over a decade.  No details as yet.  I wrote about the possible Spanish expansion a little over a year ago.

investment arithmetic

I think that LVS will earn about $3 a share this year.  So at Friday’s closing price, LVS is trading at 18.6x this year’s earnings and yielding 1.7%.

That’s not the right way to value the company, however, in my opinion.  I prefer sum-of-the-parts.

Based on its current market cap in Hong Kong, LVS’s share of 1928 is worth roughly $22.5 billion.  If we think the Marina Bay Sands in Singapore should trade at 80% of 1928′s EBITDA multiple, then it’s worth about $25 billion ($31 billion if MBS were to trade at parity with 1928).

LVS’s market cap (even though it’s up over 30% ytd) is $41 billion.  Therefore, LVS’s US operations are still trading at a value of negative $6.5 billion.

What should the value of Las Vegas + Bethlehem be?

There are, of course, two parts to US profits for LVS–casino operations and management fees collected from Asia.  For simplicity’s sake, lump them together.  Say they’ll generate $600 million in cash from operations this year.  Let’s cut that down to $400 million after taxes.  Now, let’s assume this business never recovers and should be evaluated as if it were a junk bond.  If we assume a that the cash represents a yield of 7.5%, then the principal value of the “bond” should be $5.3 billion.  Subtract $2 billion in debt (that may be excessive, but…) and we’re left with $3.3 billion.

Fair value for LVS, then, should be $3.3 billion + $22.5 billion + $25 billion  =  $50.8 billion, or 24% higher than where the stock is currently trading.

WYNN may be the highest quality casino company, but this analysis means for me that LVS is the most attractive casino stock (remember, I own both LVS and WYNN–more WYNN than LVS, though).

The reason I see for the recent strength in the shares of both Wynn Macau and its parent Wynn Resorts is a press report that 1128 will receive government approval this coming Monday for its proposed new casino in the Cotai section of the SAR.  The news was first published in the Portuguese-language newspaper Jornal Tribuna de Macau and subsequently in Macau Business.

According to MB, the contract signing ceremony will take place while Steve Wynn is in Macau next week, but the official announcement will not come until the contract is published in the Official Gazette in mid-May.

oops!!

Twice before during the past several months, parties associated with WYNN have, prematurely, announced that the company had received approval for the project.  These breaches of protocol appear to have offended the Macau government and resulted in further delay each time.  In the current case, it appears to me that the leak must have come from the government itself, so the article shouldn’t matter.  When questioned about it, Mr. Wynn said nothing, just that he was hopeful of approval but that the decision was up to Macau.

The Wynn Cotai project, whose design was complete over a year ago, will include hotels, casino(s), restaurants, retail and convention/meeting space.  The size of the casino floorspace isn’t clear, although we know the Macau government is eager to see new projects contain a greater percentage of area devoted to non-gambling activities than has been the case to date.  The project will probably end up costing close to US$3 billion.  Opening could be in early 2016.

The Cotai casino would be good for WYNN and 1128…

Cotai, Sheldon Adelson’s idea for recreating the Ls Vegas Strip in Asia, is becoming the hot new gaming location in Macau.  Also, it’s increasingly evident that both Wynn and Encore in Macau are closing in on the limits of their capacity.  So the new project will provide a concrete (no pun intended) path for future earnings growth–both for 1128 and, by implication, for its parent WYNN.

…and for the SAR as well

After all, Steve Wynn is the premier casino designer in the world.  And his company is a master at catering to high roller gamblers.  It would make no sense for the SAR to deprive itself of his expertise.

approval for another firm coming later this year

The government’s overall idea is to continue to expand its tourism business, but at a controlled rate.  It has announced that this means approving two new projects in 2012.

The two prominent other applicants for permission to build a new Cotai casino complex are MGM China and SJM.  If they’re the two finalists, as they probably are, this presents an interesting–and possibly revealing– decision for the SAR.  SJM, the former monopoly casino operator when Macau was a Portuguese colony, which continues to control about a third of the market, is owned by the Ho family.  Pansy Ho also continues to have significant influence over MGM China, where she has about a 20% equity interest.  Declaration of the winner may give some insight into the direction of government gambling policy.

After the close of New York trading yesterday, AAPL reported results for its second fiscal quarter (the company’s fiscal year ends in October).

It was–contrary to highly publicized negative analyst expectations–another litany of record performances.

Revenue was $39.2 billion, up 58.7% year on year.

Net income was $11.6 billion, up 93.3%.

EPS was $12.30, a 92% yoy gain.  Of 42 analyst estimates for the quarter, the lowest was $8.46, the highest $11.80, the median $9.81.  So, once again, AAPL blew away the consensus.

details

The company sold 35.1 million iPhones during the quarter, up 88%.  This compares with 46% growth in the overall smartphone market.

iPad sales were 11.8 million, a 151% yoy increase.

4 million Macs went out the door, up 7% yoy (in a PC market that was up 2%).

iPod unit volume was 7.7 million units, down by 15%.  The music player–which was once half the company–now represents only 3% of sales, however.

what caught my eye

AAPL continues to be capacity constrained with the new iPad.  The huge tablet sales gain this quarter appears to have been driven by demand–especially from schools–for iPad2, once AAPL dropped the price to $399.  I don’t see any reason to think that this new-found new source of tablet demand will go away any time soon.  And it could turn out to be very big.

Greater China was the geographical star.  Sales in the region, which made up 20% of the AAPL total for the quarter, tripled yoy.  iPhone sales were 5x the year-ago level.

Mac sales barely outpaced the market for the quarter.  But that’s comparing a newly refreshed product line a year ago with the same lineup today–now a little long in the tooth.  So I don’t think the weaker than usual comparison means anything.

Management gave its usual song and dance to “justify” its low-ball earnings estimate for the June quarter–$8.68/ share.  The company did make two reasonable points, though.  It expects to sell a lot of iPads, which carry lower margins than other AAPL products.  Also, 2+ million of the iPhones sold to telephone companies during the period went to replenish store inventories depleted during the holiday season.  This extra demand won’t be present in the current quarter.  Neither is that significant, in my opinion.  Together, they may just mean that yoy gains in 3Q12 won’t be quite as impressive as in 2Q12.

pre-announcement analyst panic

AAPL sold off by about 15% in the days before the earnings release.

I was struck by the number of analysts who rushed to publicly validate the price decline by offering negative assessments (now proven to have been wildly incorrect) of the company’s 2Q12 prospects.  One can only imagine what they were saying in private meetings with institutional clients.  I was also struck by the dearth of AAPL defenders–although it’s possible their comments were edited out.

For instance,:

–one analyst I read predicted Mac sales would be down, year on year, in the quarter–without mentioning either how difficult the comparison was or that Macs only make up a bit more than 10% of AAPL’s business.

–another said in a recent TV interview that he was lowering his forecast of iPhone sales from 33 million to 30 million–and intimated he thought that figure might still be too high.

I have four observations:

1.  I think the analysts in question extrapolated from what they knew about the US and Europe to the rest of the world.  When you think about it, that seems kind of loony.  Why would you think China, which is growing at 7%+ and where people are just starting to buy smartphones, would look like the US?

2.  More generally, the incident says something about the quality of research on Wall Street.  APPL isn’t the only case.  Analysts did the same sort of extrapolation with INTC last year.

3.  It says something admirable about AAPL that they don’t have one standard of information dissemination for ordinary people like you and me, and another one for Wall Street analysts.

4.  This shows how a rumor-driven market works.  Once a story starts, information sources rush to repeat and amplify the rumors, mostly because they’re worried that otherwise they’ll be thought to be out of touch.

AAPL’s stock?  It still looks cheap to me.

Thailand

I was just getting acquainted with Thailand when the Ms. Chamoy Thipyaso chit fund scandal broke.  “Mae” (=Mother) Chamoy, the wife of a Thai Air Force officer, appeared to be running a very large chit fund investment operation that was stringing together a sequence of startlingly high investment returns.  She had agents throughout Thailand collecting new money for her.  Money was pouring in.

The fund turned out to be a gigantic Ponzi scheme, however.

The scheme sustained itself for an unusually long time.  It continued to operate even after it had become so large (US$100 million+) it was implausible to think Mae could find enough lucrative “secret” microfinancing opportunities in Thailand.  Several reasons for this:

–people wanted to believe.

–the fund appeared to have the backing of the military, the ultimate source of political and business leadership in Thailand.  This gave an implied assurance that the investment results were real.  Prominent high-ranking Air Force officers invested with Mae, and forcefully urged their subordinates to do so as well.

–investors who thought about withdrawing some of their “profits” were pressured not to do so, with the threat that if they took money out they would be blacklisted and not allowed to invest in the fund thereafter.

Interestingly, large investors in the Chamoy fund continued to urge their friends and work subordinates to plow money into the fund even after they realized it was a Ponzi scheme.  Their rationale?   …it bought them more time.  That extra time allowed them to continue to enjoy a lifestyle they knew was going to end when the fraud was discovered.  And it allowed them to arrange their financial affairs in a way that would minimize the negative impact on them personally.  To followers of the Bernie Madoff case in the US, this must certainly sound familiar.

my thoughts

In my reading about microfinance, it seems that Ponzi schemes have been a constant problem wherever third-party chit funds–not the ones where friends and neighbors lend to one another–operate.  That means virtually everyplace in South Asia and Africa.  There seems to be an especially large amount of study done of the industry in India, which I have no practical experience with (because the stock market isn’t easily open to foreigners–and I think the political environment is particularly unfriendly toward equity investors.)

Personally, I’d worry more about Ponzi schemes in the US springing up among the firms that the JOBS Act will allow to raise equity.  These are the entities that won’t have adequate financial controls or accounting statements for shareholders.

My chief p2p banking concern is a more prosaic one–that the present very low loan loss rates will prove to be more a function of the industry’s newness rather than of the creditworthiness of borrowers.  Time will tell.  And, unlike fraud, this is a risk we can take precautions for.

Taiwan

There was a unique twist to the Taiwanese chit fund industry that I encountered in the mid-1980s.   Chit fund loans were secured by post-dated checks issued to the borrowers by the lenders.  In Taiwan at that time, “bouncing” a check–having insufficient funds in the account to cover payment–was a felony, punishable by the check writer serving time in prison.

The threat of jail time was thought to be sufficient incentive to ensure repayment.  So no one worried too much about the creditworthiness of the borrowers, which–as it turned out–included large publicly-traded companies.  American accountants I met, who’d been sent to Taiwan to break into the auditing business there, told me that they could see the fact of unaccounted-for money sloshing around in potential client companies.  They just couldn’t see how much.  Because of this, they were reluctant to take any engagements.  And they were continually undercut by local accounting firms who charged virtually nothing for “audits.”   American bank lending officers told me the same thing.

The chit fund business received a major shock, during a mild economic downturn, some large companies had made hundreds of millions of dollars in chit fund loans–all unrecorded in the financial accounts–that they couldn’t repay.  Bankruptcies resulted.

my thoughts

This is another potential problem for equity holders in firms crowdfunded under the JOBS Act.  Without audited financials, it’s impossible for an outside investor to determine what the capital structure of a company is.

I also think, à la Taiwan, a legitimate auditor will simply walk away from a suspect company rather than make a public outcry.  Non-disclosure agreements may force it to do no more.  A less fastidious auditor, one nobody ever heard of, might take the business and issue a clean opinion.  After all, Bernie Madoff got one for years, didn’t he?

Yesterday, in conjunction with its release of 1Q12 earnings, GOOG published a letter to shareholders on its website.  In it, Larry Page and Sergei Brin outline their plans to create a new class of stock–C shares.

On shareholders’ approval, the new C shares will be distributed as a stock dividend, on a one-for-one basis, to all holders of A and B shares.  C shares will be publicly traded on NASDAQ, using a different ticker symbol from the “GOOG” the A shares use.  As will continue to trade, though.

no voting power

The sole difference among the share classes will be in voting power.  Each A share has one vote; each B share, held by corporate insiders, has 10.   C shares will have no votes.

Since holders of B shares–principally Mssrs. Page, Brin and Eric Schmidt–wield over 70% of Google’s voting power, shareholder approval is a mere formality.

Google intends to file full details of the issue with the SEC next week.

why do this?

…to keep voting control of Google in the hands of the current B shareholders.

How could control be lost?

…through a combination of sales by B holders, issuance of new A shares through stock options or acquisitions for stock.

current shares outstanding

According to the company’s 2011 10-K filing, 67.2 million class B shares, representing 672 million votes, were outstanding on December 31st.  258 million As, representing another 258 million votes, were also out.  Employee stock options on just under 10 million new A shares had been granted and remained to be exercised.  (Notably, I think, the stock option count is growing very slowly.  Google only granted options on 718,000 new shares last year.)

Therefore, assuming all stock options grants are exercised, A shares represent 28.5% of the total vote.  Bs represent 71.5%.

implications of the Cs

control structure frozen

The most obvious is that the new class will provide a way for the company to issue potentially large amounts of new shares without altering the current control structure of the company.  Google has already said future employee stock option grants will be for Cs.  Bs continue to rule.

price of the Cs vs. Bs

It’s not clear that the Cs will trade at the same price as the Bs.  Arguably, voting power should be worth something.  But in this case, as the company is currently constituted, the Bs’ votes basically have no value.  So you’d think the two prices should at least be pretty close.

stock options

Stock options don’t seem to me to be a big deal–or any deal at all.  Here’s what I mean:

If we assume all outstanding stock options are exercised, the company currently has a total of 940 million votes.  Bs have 672 million, with 268 million more for the As.

For the moment, let’s ignore the possibility that insiders sell a significant number of Bs to get walking-around money.  Yes, company rules require that Bs be converted into As before being sold, so no outsiders can end up with the super-vote shares.  Bs, therefore, can–and in the past have–disappeared.  And, yes, Mssrs. Page and Brin are halfway through a modest (for them) sell program that goes into 2015.  But put these thoughts to the side.

As things stand now, A shares can only achieve a voting majority if over 672 million are outstanding.  That’s an extra 404 million shares.  At the 2011 stock option issuance rate, the As take over in the year 2575, or 563 years from now.  At the 2010 issuance rate of 1.7 million, the As grab the reins in a mere 238 years, in 2250.

Suppose B holders sell 10% of their stock–because they need a loose $4.4 billion.  That would imply that the Bs outstanding shrink to roughly 6 million and As expand to 275 million.  In this case, the As still need 325 million more shares to take over.  That would happen, at the earliest, toward the end of the next century.

Even for long-term thinkers like Google, dealing with stock options worries can’t be a pressing issue.

stock-based acquisitions

This is the only reason I can see for the C share move.

True, Google has $44 billion+ in cash; operations generated $14 billion+ last year.  But a seller may well prefer stock to cash.  And, of course, a potential acquisition could be very large.  It could also be very large and very sick, needing a big infusion of cash after the purchase.

Yes, the founders’ letter says  “we don’t have an unusually big acquisition planned, in case you were wondering.”  I’m sure that’s true.  But I’d emphasize the word “planned.”  It seems to me that Google may well have decided it needs to make an acquisition of a certain type over the next couple of years and have developed a list of possible candidates. The next step is figuring out how to pay for it–which is what I think Google is doing now.

Who know what such an acquisition might be?  I wouldn’t care to bet on anything.  But I do have a guess, however   …somebody like Sony.  But that company has been such a train wreck for such a long time that I don’t see any percentage in speculating that Google would rescue them.  There are also severe legal obstacles that Tokyo has erected to deter foreign takeovers of its domestic firms.  On the other hand, Sony is a post-WWII upstart, not part of the establishment.  And the company does have TV technology, cellphones, tablets/PCs and the Playstation in tens of millions of homes around the world.

On Monday April 2, the Macau Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau published on its website monthly results for March in the SAR.  Here they are:

Source: Macau DICJ (Gaming Inspection and Coordination Bureau)

what they say to me

Yes, it’s the strongest non-holiday month ever in Macau.  Only last October (with Golden Week) and this January (New Year) had higher monthly win for the casino industry.

On the other hand, we don’t see anything like the almost manic surge in the size of the market that we experienced throughout 2011.  We may see some upward bounce in the April and May figures, as the new Las Vegas Sands casino on Cotai opens this month.

There isn’t enough evidence yet to draw firm conclusions.  However, if the right way to read the current figures is that the market is plateauing for the moment around the MOP 25 billion level (this is my guess), year on year growth comparisons should begin to narrow as the second half starts.

Although, again, there’s no clear evidence, I’m reading this potential growth slowdown to be the result of economic slowdown on the mainland.  If so, as the current expansionary measures Beijing is enacting bear fruit, I’d expect the growth rate to begin to expand again.  Timing is the only question.

It’s possible, though, that the plateauing I see is being induced by the leading casinos having reached full capacity–in which case, second-choice casinos should enjoy their day in the sun over the coming months.  And the Macau government should accelerate the pace of its approval of new casino permits.

One other point:  prior to the mammoth overcapacity the Las Vegas casinos by aggressive new construction during the past five years, only about half of that industry’s profits came from gambling.  The rest was food, lodging and entertainment.  One would expect that at least the American-owned casinos would follow the same development model in Macau–a move the Macau government is strongly encouraging.

Over the next five years, then, one could expect the gambling market to grow by at least the rate of Chinese GDP, or by close to 50%, and the industry’s profits to expand by a minimum of another 50%–and maybe much more–as non-gambling businesses expand.

Over the next five months, on the other hand it’s less clear how much there will be to cheer about.  I don’t see any need to sell the stocks;  I just don’t think they’ll run away to the upside.

Yesterday’s Financial Times outlines a judgment made last week in a Japanese insider trading case.  The newspaper misses what I think is the main story, however.

the recent verdict

An institutional portfolio manager at Chuo Mitsui Asset Trust and Banking was found guilty of receiving, and acting on, insider information about an upcoming issue of new stock by a publicly listed company.  The PM made ¥14 million ($170,000) for his clients by trading on the tip.

penalties?

They were:

–the PM’s employer, Chuo Mitsui, was fined ¥50,000 ($600)

–there was no requirement of forfeiture of profits illegally made

–no penalty of any type either for the portfolio manager who received the tip or the broker who gave it.

The article goes on a bit about how, in the mysterious way Japan works, the nominal fine may have sent a powerful symbolic message that therefore the penalties may be more severe than a foreigner might suppose.  I think the nominal penalties do send a message, though not in the way the FT believes.

Oddly enough, the newspaper contrasts this fine with the ¥1.15 billion ($14 million) fine levied against Yoshiaki Murakami for trading on inside information about a half decade ago.  But it doesn’t realize that this contrast is the real story.

the Murakami saga

Mr. Murakami is a naive former civil servant who believed traditional Japanese corporations badly needed restructuring.  He formed an asset management company about ten years ago.  Its purpose was to be a gadfly that could prompt corporate/social change, while making money for clients at the same time.  One of Mr. Murakami’s targets–his last–was Nippon Broadcasting System.

Mr. Murakami bought a very large position in NBS.   He approached the company with suggestions about how to improve very weak corporate results.  He also asked for a board seat.

Management ignored Mr. Murakami.  It called on the “usual suspects”–suppliers, customers, domestic institutional investors–for support by buying NBS stock themselves, or at least by refusing to sell to Mr. Murakami.  Effectively isolated, Mr. Murakami approached a somewhat sketchy internet entrepreneur, Takafumi Horie of Livedoor, for aid.

Livedoor told Mr. Murakami in a private meeting that it intended to build a stake in NBS itself.  The declaration made Mr. Murakami an insider of Livedoor.  Despite this–he later claimed he didn’t understand the implications of his inside knowledge–Mr. Murakami bought more NBS.

Livedoor subsequently launched a hostile bid for the company.  It failed.  During the battle, Mr. Murakami realized that traditional holders of NBS wouldn’t tender their stock, so he sold his for a ¥3 billion ($36 million at today’s exchange rate) profit.

Mr. Murakami was charged with insider trading and found guilty.

penalties for Mr. Murakami?

They were:

–a ¥1.15 billion ($14 million) fine

–forfeiture of all profits from selling NBS, which amounted to ¥3 billion ($36.5 million)

–two years in jail, later commuted to three years of probation.

why the sharp differences in the two cases?

Why should the punishment for insider trading be so startlingly different in these two cases?

Two factors stand out to me:

–the lesser one is that the Murakami case involved much larger amounts of money–although that doesn’t explain why there was no censure of the Chuo Mitsui portfolio manager or of the broker, and no forfeiture of illegal profits.

–the real difference, I think, is that Mr. Murakami was not part of the establishment.  Worse, he was a critic of the traditional social order.  By exposing its failings, he threatened the status quo.  In contrast, both the broker and the Chuo Mitsui portfolio manager were working within the shadow system of favors and obligations that the establishment uses to feather its own nest and keep itself in power.

the real story

That’s the real story here–stubborn defense of the traditional economic order, even after two decades-plus of resulting economic stagnation.

No, it isn’t the frequent market holidays.

It isn’t the semi-visible, semi-not, zaibatsu/keiretsu business links that tie firms together with amazingly strong (to me, anyway) emotional bonds that foreigners find difficult to assess.

It isn’t the fact that for many Japanese company managements–to say nothing of institutional investors–one foot remains in the samurai world.

None of this helps a foreign investor.  But learning a market’s quirks is arguably part of the price of entry a newbie pays everywhere he goes.

the market structure…

No, the biggest problem for a foreigner today is the structure of the market–the selection of stocks available on the Tokyo Exchange.  Despite the fact that Japan is a wealthy nation and the second-largest advanced economy in the world, its market is dominated by the export-oriented manufacturers, plus the suppliers and distributors that support them, whose heyday (ex the autos) was thirty years ago.

…makes Japan look like an emerging country

The market structure is more like what you’d expect from China or India.  It’s also a little like the US circa 1980.  In the US since then, however, junk bond and private equity barons have taken many older, low growth firms private.  Conglomerates have broken up, or spun off their more glamorous parts, in strategies calculated to maximize their value.  Venture capital has brought a host of new firms into the public arena.  Not so Japan.  There are counterculture exceptions:  Uniqlo and the social networking firms come to mind.  But still…

None of this is exactly news.  But it’s the genesis of the dilemma foreigners now face in the Japanese stock market.

today’s problem:  a weakening yen

Newly initiated quantitative easing in Japan is weakening the yen.  That’s making life more difficult for domestic firms that use imported materials.  And it’s also a lifeline for exporters, who use yen-denominated inputs and sell their products abroad.  So Japanese institutions have been selling the former to buy the latter.  Again, no surprise.  It’s what they always do.

The issue for a foreigner is this:

Ex the autos, the exporters are not a particularly attractive picture.  Historically, they’re a pretty sorry lot in terms of making money.  They face intensifying competition from lower-cost rivals in emerging economies.  By and large, managements are hide-bound and unable to commercialize higher tech products they have.  Law and custom defend dysfunctional incumbents against any shareholder attempts at change .  (Think:  Olympus …or Sharp  …or Pioneer  …or Sanyo   …or Casio   …or Sony).

In addition, for a dollar-oriented investor, at least a part–and probably most–of any yen-denominated gains will be offset by currency losses.  Although my general rule is not to get involved in forex hedging, this is an exception.  Whether you like or not, you probably won’t make much money on your Japanese stocks unless you sell the yen.

…which brings up another potential worry.  Exporters usually run substantial currency hedging operations.  In my experience, they’re pretty good at it.  Nevertheless, it’s always possible that exporters have zigged when they should have zagged.

my bottom line

For a long time, I’ve regarded Japan as a special situations market.  Find an outstanding company; buy and hold.  Enduring the current flight from quality is just a cost of doing business.  I have no desire to chase export-oriented names, although while the yen is softening I think exporters will continue to be market stars.  If I were managing dedicated Japanese money, however, I’m sure I’d find myself under performance pressure to do just that.