online gambling in the US–stock market implications

diminishing returns

Internet gambling is just the latest symptom of the diminishing returns disease afflicting smaller casinos in the US.

More states in the US are deciding that casino gambling is a great source of generating tax revenue for them.  They may be reacting to decline in other sources of gambling revenue, like horse racing or lotteries.  Or they may just feel gambling is a good way to replace lost income tax inflow.  Whatever the reason, they’re granting more casino licenses.

For what one might call “generic” or “no-frills” gambling–that is, not Las Vegas-style resort casinos–there’s a diminishing returns aspect to this activity.  All other things being equal, a gambler seeking a “generic” experience will go to the casino that’s the closest to home.  So while  more plant and equipment gets added to the industry inventory, the new capacity results mainly in a reshuffling of revenues based on the new driving distance calculus.

Therefore, as new capacity is built,  industry-wide returns on capital diminish.  We can clearly see this in what has happened when competition emerged for Native American gambling in Connecticut, as well as when rivals began to sprout up casinos in Pennsylvania and New Jersey.  No prizes for guessing what will take place when new casinos open in, for instance, New York and Massachusetts.  It doesn’t help the situation, either, that new casino licenses are often awarded to politically-connected amateurs who don’t utilize their facilities effectively.

adding new features, not just new floor space–where internet gambling comes in

The response of PA to flagging revenues once the novelty of the state’s slot machine-only casinos wore off was to add table games, which siphoned off additional business from surrounding states.  The main victim here was Atlantic City.

NJ’s initial fix-it attempt was unusual, to say the least.  Trenton authorized the addition of new capacity, in the form of a white-elephant hotel built as a speculation during the real estate bubble.  How this was supposed to help the seaside resort’s overcapacity situation is beyond me.  The casino in question, Revel, has just filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.  Unfortunately for AC, the capacity won’t disappear.  The owners just change.

New Jersey’s second response has been to decide to add a new feature of its own–legalizing internet gambling for anyone located in New Jersey when he places a wager.  This action might, at least temporarily, keep gamblers from wandering into PA and bolster the local casino license holders, who will run the internet operations.  If so, however, success will trigger a reaction from the jurisdictions whose revenues are suddenly tailing off.

The investment point here is to expect a declining profitability trend for generic casinos of the save-the-local-racetrack-owner kind as the internet gambling trend develops.

exceptions

national/international tourist destinations

Las Vegas is one.  New York City, where Governor Cuomo appears to be dying to allow the Lim family to open a Las Vegas-style resort casino, is another.  Florida, the scene of intense lobbying reportedly from the Lims and LVS, is a third.  I’m not sure whether Boston counts, but it might be a fourth.

Yes, casinos in all of these places would be subject to the negative effects of the spread of generic gambling operations over more states.  But their location allows them to tap into a very large tourist market.

branded casinos

Think Wynn.  Think Las Vegas Sands.  

Companies like this understand how to run complex  casino-shopping-entertainment hotels.  They should be able earn much higher returns than a generic gambling-only establishment run by a local political donor.

In addition, the brand name may induce people to drive a bit farther than they would otherwise.

Combine brand name with an international resort location, and the attractions of a WYNN or LVS casino are magnified.  Visitors will likely pick the brand name.  They may already be customers in Las Vegas, Macau or Singapore.

On top of all that, assuming they have the requisite physical presence in a given state, the branded casinos have a large leg up in establishing online gambling businesses, in my view.

my take

—For a stock market investor, the easiest ways of dealing with the question of how quickly the US gambling business will deteriorate as internet gambling takes hold are:

–invest in other industries, or

–select companies like WYNN and LVS, where the US operations are an insignificant part of the whole.

—For a purely/mostly US gambling company, make sure that it has a strong brand name, high cash flow and low debt.  A Las Vegas base would be better than anywhere else.  High debt and weak Macau presence probably rule MGM out.

—There will also be companies who will act as hardware/software enablers for the internet efforts of the major gambling firms.  ZNGA, for one, has been the subject of speculation on this score for some time.  It’s not clear what role, if any, ZNGA will play, however.  Personally, I regard it as a “fool me once, fool me twice” kind of name.

Also:  I’ve been taking the view for a couple of years that for companies like LVS and WYNN that have prospering Asian casinos, Wall Street places almost no value on their US operations.  I’ve thought that to be a gross underestimate, and, in effect, the shareholder gets the US casinos “for free.”  For both LVS and certainly for WYNN, I think this remains the case.  But if internet gambling takes off, Wall Street may have been closer to correct than I have imagined.

online gambling in the US

from sayonara to Cy Young

It isn’t that long ago that the US authorities were hunting down and arresting the owners of internet gambling websites, accusing them of Ponzi scheming and assorted other bad stuff.

Yet, late week the state of Nevada legalized internet gambling. New Jersey may not be far behind. In fact, the Borgata hotel/casino in Atlantic City has begun to offer in-room gambling through the TV set.  It plans to expand soon to gambling through mobile devices like phones and tablets that are hook into the wi-fi network on its grounds.

What’s changed?

The gambling market in the US is saturated, that’s what.

There’s already too much casino capacity in the domestic market (arguably, ex Las Vegas). And there’s more on the way, as new casinos open up in Massachusetts, New York, Florida and who knows where else. Yes, these new venues do attract a few people who’ve never gambled before. But to a large degree they take business away from casinos in neighboring states. Just look at Atlantic City.

I’m going to write about this topic in two posts. Today, I’ll cover some general principles. Tomorrow, I’ll write about the stock market implications for the casino industry in the US.

1.  saturation

Early in my career as an analyst I heard a pithy statement of basic marketing from a hotel executive who was explaining why his company—and the whole industry in the US, for that matter—was diversifying from mid-market hotels into new areas, like luxury and no-frills offerings. He said: “ You don’t start selling chocolate ice cream while the market for vanilla is expanding. You only do it after the vanilla ice cream market matures.”

What’s stuck with me through the years is that if you see a company deviate from what it’s always done successfully, it’s a very good bet the traditional business is nearing the end of the line.

That’s what’s happening here.

Nevada is by a mile the biggest gambling state in the union; NJ is #3, having just been surpassed by its neighbor, Pennsylvania.  I can’t imagine that the legislature in either state would be legalizing internet gambling without the encouragement of the major casino operators.

2.  self-cannibalization isn’t good, but it’s the best alternative

Yes, the advent of online gambling means that some people—we don’t know how many, or how much revenue they represent—will gamble online rather than go to a casino. My guess, which isn’t worth much, is that poker will be the first game to feel the effects of online competition, and the one most deeply hurt.

Online revenue is money that will be lost to the casinos. The corporations that own the casinos have two basic choices:

–they can either pretend online gambling isn’t going to happen, or do everything they can to oppose legalization. In either case, they suffer the full revenue loss. Or,

–they can get out in front of the trend, establish their own online operations and recapture at least a portion of the money they stand to lose. Maybe they’re lucky and end up net winners. But even if they aren’t, unless they completely botch their online operations they’re better off than by ignoring the issue.

3.  real estate doesn’t go away quickly

Hotels, including casino resorts, typically last many decades.  Once they’re built in an already saturated market, overcapacity is the order of the day until/unless the market expands to absorb it.

Casinos are particularly tenacious, because operators can increase table game gambling capacity simply by changing the little table betting limit signs.  Though a more expensive proposition than a $5 sign, slot machines can be swapped in or out quickly.

Structures do age, especially if management doesn’t continually spend on refurbishment.  A hotel, for example, may start out as  Marriott.  If the owners decide at some point to run it to maximize cash, they stop refurbishing.  The hotel may may then become a Great Western, then a Knights Inn…  Ultimately, it will be converted into, say, a nursing home and disappear as a hotel.  But that process can take twenty years or more.

More tomorrow.

Atlantic City gambling–withering on the vine

history

Casino gambling was legalized in Atlantic City in the 1970s.  The faded beach resort became an instant darling of US gamblers and of Wall Street (not two mutually exclusive sets)  …at least until the world worked out that there were no hotel rooms, the  weather got really cold in the winter, and the Garden State Parkway could only take so many cars before turning into a parking lot.  Only the first of these warts was easily fixable.

Steve Wynn was the first to smell the coffee, selling his Golden Nugget and returning to Las Vegas to begin building  today’s Las Vegas Strip.

Nevertheless, Atlantic City gaming revenues continued to grow, slowly, peaking in 2006 at $5.2 billion and declining steadily since.

today

The Star Ledger recently reported that last year Atlantic City was edged out by Pennsylvania (which legalized casino gambling in 2004) as the second-largest casino market in the US.  Both had yearly gambling revenues for 2012 of slightly more than $3 billion.

Atlantic City has clearly been damaged badly by Pennsylvania casinos.  But the Star Ledger notes that PA gambling revenues would have been higher had it not been for western the western part of the state encountering competition from a new casino in Cleveland.

the future 

Governor Christie may not have been happy when the Atlantic City mayor urged residents not to evacuate to higher ground in advance of Superstorm Sandy.  Nevertheless, that hasn’t stopped several recent developments aimed at making Atlantic City gambling more attractive (and therefore more tax-generative).

These may be a glimpse into the future for casinos in the US.  They are:

1.  The Borgata, the most successful Atlantic City casino, will begin to offer in-room video slot machine and poker gambling through TV.  The next step will apparently be allowing mobile gambling on the Borgata wi-fi network using smartphones and tablets for all casino guests while on casino property.

2.  Governor Christie, in vetoing an internet gambling bill passed by the legislature, said he would approve it if minor modifications are made.

3.  The New Jersey Casino Control Commission, the toughest regulator in the country, seems to be hinting that it could reconsider its ban of MGM International from casino operations in the state.  MGM lost its license to operate in New Jersey and was forced to divest its 50% interest in the Borgata (it’s in a trust) in 2010 because it would not sever its ties with Pansy Ho, whom the regulators determined was linked to organized crime in China.

implications

Governor Cuomo of New York appears to be very susceptible to the blandishments of the Lim family of Malaysia, which wants to build a Las Vegas-style casino somewhere (anywhere?) in NY.  Massachusetts is now considering proposals for building casinos as well.  So it seems like competition will intensify in coming years, not lessen.

Gambling revenue is a straightforward function of GDP.  Without strong GDP growth, the success of new gambling venues will depend almost completely on cannibalizing revenue from other locations.  We can see this clearly in Pennsylvania vs. New Jersey.

Innovation will be driven by the states losing market share.  Legalizing internet gambling seems to be the clear next step.  Weakening requirements to obtain a gambling license looks like another possibility.

Nearby destinations will likely be hit the hardest, but regional developments can’t be having a positive effect on Las Vegas visitation.

 

imminent crackdown on high rollers in Macau?

an anti-corruption campaign

Overnight The Times of London published an article saying that the new administration in Beijing will begin a crackdown on corruption in China shortly after the start of the new year late this month.  This will included an attack on organized crime (triad)-related money-laundering junkets by gamblers to Macau.

Most Hong Kong-traded Macau gambling stocks sold off by 5%-7% on the news–the one exception being, oddly enough, MGM China ( HK: 2282), which is strongly linked to Stanley Ho’s daughter, Pansy.  US-traded gambling stocks with Macau exposure are selling off today as well, although to a much lesser extent.

What’s going on?

–I’m assuming the report is true, even though I’ve never–ever–seen The Times break an important stock market-related story.  If I had to guess, this is a deliberate leak from the police in Hong Kong.

–The extent of triad influence in Macau today is unclear.  In colonial Macau it’s thought to have flourished, with the rumored help of the Ho family of SJM Holdings–then the monopoly casino operator.  In my view, one of the main reasons the SAR invited American firms like WYNN and LVS to establish casinos a decade ago was to be a counterweight to traditional influences–partly for their superior technology, partly for their far superior compliance procedures.

–Income inequality, and in particular the vast fortunes that relatives of high officials seem to routinely accumulate, is a topic of increasing political concern in China.  It’s also a specific target of the new administration.  So a crackdown may have more targets than just the underworld.

–The selloff so far has been across the board, ex MGM and MGM China.  If the target is just the underworld, it’s possible that casinos associated with the Ho family, long rumored to have triad connections, would be hit the worst.  If the target is also high rollers in general, add the WYNN interests to the list, since that company specializes in catering to the high roller market.  Arguably, Galaxy Entertainment and the LVS companies will be hurt the least, since they focus on the growing mass market and haven’t had the greatest success in wooing deep-pocketed individuals.

what to do

No one really knows how severe or how long-lasting an anti-corruption campaign focused on Macau gamblers might be.  To pick a number out of the air, it’s possible that the result would be a permanent 10% reduction in the level of gambling in the SAR.  I think that’s probably too severe, but let’s stick with that figure.   After whatever initial downward shock there might be, this would mean a year without much growth in the SAR’s gambling revenues.  The pain would probably be distributed as I’ve described in the previous section.

I believe that the long-term prospects for Macau gambling are excellent–at least unless/until Beijing decides to establish a competing gambling enclave on the mainland.  There’s no sign that’s likely to happen; it’s just the only thing I can see that will upset the apple cart.  I’m all for anything that cleans up illegal activity.  So I look at the threat of a decline in the Macau gambling stocks as a temporary affair and mainly an issue of portfolio risk control.

These stocks have generally been outstanding performers recently, on the idea that the upturn in the Chinese economy now under way will mean a rebound in Macau gambling market growth.  So the stocks may have become outsized parts of your portfolio.  Trim position sizes, if necessary.  Imagine a 20% stock price decline from here.  Are you satisfied to hold all the stock you own now?  If not, cut the position sizes and wait to see what happens.

 

 

4Q12 for Las Vegas Sands (LVS): Asian good times are back

the report

After the New York close yesterday, LVS reported its 4Q12 earnings results.  The company reported profits of $434.8 million, or $.54 a share, on revenues of $3.06 billion.  EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization–a measure of operating profits) was $1.002 billion.

Revenues were up 20% year on year, net income up 35%.

As regular readers know, casino company financials are unusual in that what counts as revenue for gambling companies is not the amount bet by customers but rather the portion of that amount that the casino retains or “holds”–that is to say, the amount that customers lose.  The amount bet, which appears nowhere on the income statement (but is normally somewhere in the company press release), is, in my experience, a relatively stable and pretictable function of customers’ income and casino floor space.  The “hold,” on the other hand, is also a function of luck, which can vary considerably over short periods of time.  The first thing an analyst will do in looking at casino earnings is to correct them for these luck variations.

As for LVS, the company was unusually lucky in Macau during 4Q12, but unlucky everywhere else.  Overall, EPS would have been $.63 if the company had had average luck throughout its operations.  That compares with the Wall Street consensus, which I’ve always read as being luck neutral, of $.59.

LVS has also raised its quarterly per share dividend from $.25 to $.35, starting with the March 2013 payout.

As I’m writing this, the stock is up by about 5% in after hours trading.

the details

Macau

Sands China generated EBITDA of $622.2 million during the quarter, up 44% year on year.  Subtracting out unusually good luck, EBITDA was $575.4 million, up 32.5% vs. 4Q11.

LVS’s aggressive expansion in developing the Cotai area appears to be paying off.  Because it has developed extra capacity, it stands to benefit disproportionately as both economic recovery on the mainland and better transportation links deliver increasing numbers of visitors to Macau.

Perhaps more important, LVS announced it has been granted permission by the Macau government to add 200 new tables to its casinos, a strong sign that the SAR approves of the way Sands China is doing business.

Singapore

After having hold-adjusted EBITDA stall, with a slight downward bias, for the last year at around $380 million, Marina Bay posted 4Q12 EBITDA of $406.4 million, up 6.8% yoy and 9.1% qoq.  Although this market is so new it’s impossible to interpret the figures with any confidence, the fact that EBITDA is moving up again is encouraging.

the US

Flattish EBITDA, which is all investors should want.  Hold-adjusted, Las Vegas was down by $8.1 million at $87.9 million.  Bethlehem was up $3.0 million at $25.6 million.

asset value

LVS has a market cap, at the aftermarket quote, of about $45 billion.  It’s ownership of Hong Kong-traded Sands China is worth $29 billion.  If we applied the same valuation to 100%-owned Marina Bay Sands, it would be worth about the same.  But Singapore doesn’t appear to have the explosive growth potential of Macau, at least as things stand now.  Remember, though, this time a year ago there seemed to be no limit to the upward trajectory of Marina Bay’s EBITDA, so we’ve got to keep an open mind.  Trying to be conservative, let’s say that current Singapore earnings are worth a multiple of .6x what Macau’s are.  That would give Marina Bay Sands an asset value of about $17 billion.

Together, the Asian properties explain the entire market value of LVS.

Over the next year, what might we reasonably expect from Asia?  Sands China could be trading at a price 20% higher than it is now, based on Macau market growth and increased Sands China market share.  Revival of the apparently more business cycle-sensitive Singapore gambling market might produce 10%-15% EBITDA growth and a mild expansion of the relative multiple.  If so, even if the market continues to value the US operations of LVS at the current zero, we should expect a substantially higher share price for LVS.

earnings

Full-year earnings for LVS in 2012 were $2.14/share.  To me, it seems reasonable to expect $2.50 in 2013–meaning LVS is currently trading on a forward earnings multiple of 22x.  Yes, that’s high, but it’s no longer in the stratosphere.  The stock also yields 2.6%.

Therefore, even on a conventional PE basis, which I don’t think is the right way to value the stock, LVS doesn’t look bad.