Jump to content

WYNN - Wynn Resorts Limited


ccplz
 Share

Recommended Posts

In the midst of the bad news from Macau, I've started looking at Wynn and LVS. At what price would Wynn be good value?

 

My basic idea is that gambling is not going to disappear. The desire of people to gamble is very high. For example in stocks, day trading comes very close to gambling. People like to gamble. If there’s a football game, especially if it’s boring, you’ll enjoy it more if you bet a few bucks. The human propensity to gamble is huge.

 

Wynn is led by Steve Wynn, who is a proven owner-operator and has best track record out of all the casino owners. He's been in the gaming industry for 30 years. He has vision - he sees what other people do not see. And Wynn the company is the best run gaming company in the world, with multiple drivers for growth in the medium term - recovery in Macau (timing looking uncertain), Boston (probably from 2018 onwards, depending on how long it takes to get approved + get the casino built), Japan (probably for the longer term / 2022 onwards). What sort of multiple would you pay for a company like this? 20x? 30x?

 

Wynn Macau's revenue attributed to Wynn was 3.8 bn for 2014, and Wynn's Vegas operations revenues for 2014 was 1.6bn. Wynn's overall profit margins was around 18% for 2014. If we value Wynn Macau at nothing (which is insane), and put a 20x multiple on earnings from their Vegas operations (around 295m), we would be valuing that at around 5.9bn. Company is trading for ~7bn right now. It traded at 7bn back in 2005 when it had $0 in revenues and all it had in assets was: (1) the new Wynn Las Vegas resort; (2) an annex to Wynn Las Vegas, the $1.4 billion Encore, on which ground will be broken this summer; (3) a $700 million casino scheduled to open in the Chinese territory of Macau in late 2006; (4) a recently submitted bid for a license to build a casino in Singapore.

 

Would love to hear your thoughts. Is a 20x multiple too high? Are there any real liquidity concerns? Thoughts on the gaming industry in general?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two yardsticks that may help you:

Telsey(who hates the stock) thinks on a NAV basis they would ascribe a value of a 3.4% cap rate in Vegas and a 4.5% cap rate in Macau is worth $30.4bn less $6bn in other, rented properties and mgmt contracts and $6.9bn in debt is worth $169 per share. Obviously the company doesn't plan on splitting off the real estate but that math is telling.

 

Morningstar's yardstick math is a bit different. If you assume the value of Macau is at least worth the debt(save any real estate value), they think Vegas cash flows are worth $74 and Boston worth $8. Take those cash flow projections with some salt given they find the fair value to be in the $150s but I think it broadly makes a point I think would interest you. The Boston resort broke ground yesterday after getting the environmental signature for pre-construction remediation - slated to be Mass' largest privately funded investment of all time. Seeing a well managed company with a stock trade at value nicely below what's available on our shores doesn't smell right and it is something I was buying today. Now Vegas isn't as gaming rich as it used to be but its non-gaming revenues are all-time highing which should have a lodging like multiple especially given the total breakdown of the racino & Atlantic City models.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ind Research Shop, Dana Telsey was the specialty retail analyst at Bear from 97-07. Now has her own company(Telsey Advisory Group) that is expanding out - this is a new analyst I believe.  TAG thinks although the NAV is there and Wynn has been the best operator from a productivity standpoint they are the most levered to the VIP segment of Macau and won't be long the stock until that trend turns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO doubt that Wynn is a skilled operator, and his properties are well above average.

 

However, Mr. Wynn is not in the greatest health and he is 73 years old.

 

Additionally, if you think Macau will come back, are there "cheaper" operators?  One that I can think of off the top of my head is Emperor Entertainment, 0296 or EPETF.  According to the HK stock exchange, this stock is trading for a P/E of 3.69 and pays a healthy dividend (.11 HKD, for a yield of 7.7%).  They also have real estate holdings (2 hotels), and have a rock solid balance sheet (net cash position).

 

Also note that while EPETF's operations have taken a hit in Macua, they are down about 6% to their earnings!  Compare that to some other Macau operators.

 

No doubt WYNN has cachet, and is probably a better operator, and is more diversified...but is it worth at least 6.5X more than EPETF on a valuation basis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I think Morningstar's point is so intriguing or even ccplz's angle - you don't have to know what will exactly happen in Macau or when. If it is a great long term growth story, there is probably plenty of money to be made. On a % basis, there are probably better ways to play it but Steve Wynn + the real estate + Vegas & Boston I think lowers the risk to a low enough level that it is worth making an equity investment in an outcome(how hard will the authorities impair the Macau business) that is very speculative/unknowable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess one of the issues here is that you aren't betting on gambling, you're betting specifically on a particular form of gambling - heavily regulated gaming taking place in destination casinos (extremely moderate exposure to regionals). Obviously the moves to take away restrictions on gambling have been very slow, but if a basic premise is that gambling won't disappear, it seems fair to ask if it will always be heavily regulated to the point of non-existence in so much of the world. To put it another way, is this similar to betting on arcades in 1980 because the growth of video games was unstoppable, or betting on Barnes & Noble because people love to consume the written word.

 

I guess overall I'm skeptical calling for a great growth story in a company that's overwhelmingly concentrated in two markets - one still down in nominal dollar size vs. the prior peak, the other a market that has growth explosively but has little track record and whose future seems completely dependent on regulation by a highly non-transparent regime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two points:

 

(1) Where are you getting a $295 million net profit number for Vegas?  Wynn Las Vegas files its own financials with the SEC.  According to the 2014 annual report, EBIT was $270 million. 

 

(2) Wynn has earned extraordinary returns on its existing Macau hotel-casino.  It is far more profitable than Vegas.  But will Wynn earn the same returns on the $4 billion it is investing in its massive new Cotai hotel casino, or will the increased competition from all the new luxury hotel-casinos being built there drive down returns on capital?  To me, this is the key question for Wynn investors.   

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RE: The below comments on it being a bet on gaming.

Vegas has become more of a resort as you likely know. So betting on gaming revenue that has peaked isn't what you have to pay for today. The WSJ ran a piece last month that said gaming accounted for 59% of Las Vegas Strip properties’ revenue in 1984, 30 years later the Strip relied on gambling for just 37% of its revenue. If you were interested in gaming, that business has been dying but that's why we aren't talking about AC or Dover downs(NYSE: DDE) at $1/share. It is trade shows, vacations, nuptuals, conferences, entertainment - and its share of those markets are growing. Is it a monopoly for those markets, no, but its grip is firming. I don't think anyone would call it "great growth" but a great business, yes. That's why TAG has a 3.4% cap rate on it.

 

KJP, I think your point is more salient but I see it a shade differently. Will the move down-market where competition is stronger be a good use of $4.1bn - probably not but we are not asking that question with a stock at $115 when board members were buying. Today in the $60s you have to ask yourself if the returns available are going to be greater than the mkt implies. We all know it is not the return on invested capital that drives a stock, it is the change on return on invested capital. Is it worth more than the debt, it is being priced as if it was worth less. I obviously don't agree.

 

With the stock trading $14-15 below the equity value Morningstar's analyst sees in the US resorts, that 20% return provides a nice margin of safety. If Macau can come back and fill out the debt layer or creep back into the equity layer or the real estate is used we could see dynamic upside. 

 

I think that is the key question on this stock at this price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ccplz's post could be timely.

 

The key point is Macau and LV have completely different growth/risk profiles that they need to be looked separately.

 

The Macau piece is hard to figure out. The possible upside is massive (1.3bn people with extremely high gaming propensity, consumer budgets are increasingly being shifted to travel/entertainment as income grows, there is zero regional competition). The downside is equally huge (the authorities dictate how many visitors can come to Macau and how much money they can bring, they can shut everything down if they choose).

 

So the margin of safety seems to lie mostly in the value of the LV assets.

 

Would it be possible for anyone who is familiar with the LV assets lay out the thoughts and math on what LV is really worth for Wynn?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ccplz -

 

I am not sure about a 20x EBIT multiple for the LV assets. LV doesn't seem to be growing a lot. I don't know how much Boston is worth. As for Japan, it's way too early to assign value - the law has not even been passed, and there is no certainty WYNN will get a piece.

 

More importantly, when we think of WYNN it has the US assets, the Macau assets, and debt.

 

SI -

 

I am curious about the numbers you cited.

 

So according to Telsey, how much of the $30.4bn is due to Macau? I assume a big part. If so likely he is assuming a strong recovery in Macau in the next couple of years. Once we involve Macau in the analysis, the certainty factor drops significantly.

 

As for the Morningstar math, they think Vegas is worth $74, or $7.5bn. In the past 2-3 years, the average EBITDA from LV was $490mn. So Moriningstar was implying an EBITDA multiple of just over 15x. It may be ok, maybe a bit rich, and certainly is not very cheap. Assuming Macau is worth the debt however is a bit problematic. WYNN's 72% stake in WYNN Macau is worth $5.2bn, quite a bit less than the long-term debt of $8bn and net debt of $6.5bn. Factoring in the difference, your 20% margin of safety is mostly gone.

 

Bottomline seems to be that without having a view on where Macau is headed, the stock is not at a point where it can be supported by the US assets alone. As long as the casino stocks fall in HK, WYNN will need to follow.

 

I do think the stock is likely hugely undervalued though, because of Macau. I feel strongly that the magnitude of a possible upside in Macau in the long-term can be extraordinary. My difficulty is I don't know how to figure out the odds of the different scenarios in China/Macau, given the potential outcomes can be extremely wide.

 

Look forward to hearing more thoughts on this.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-TAG has $8bn(implying 16x ebitda) on Vegas on their 3.4% cap rate, Macau at $22.9bn(implying 12x).

-Morningstar who published today on the stock has $550mn in 2018 ebitda.(Fair value 'lowered' to $145)

-I don't think the Vegas cap rate to be aggressive so I will take the 16x multiple as it is to imply $8.8bn on MStar ebitda.

-Morningstar has Boston at  $106mn in that year(first year Boston is in model and hence the reason they are using 2018) though  which maybe you just use the midpoint for the time being of 14x, this looks linline with what it is reported Penn just paid on a fully loaded Tropicana(LV) ebitda. Now Boston has more risk but ebitda in year 1 should be a baseline too.

-Let's call it $10.2 in domestic EV. Of the gross debt, Morningstar believes $3bn is attributable to Vegas and Boston for a mkt cap of domestic assets of $7.2bn.

-There is also gross cash as well and Morningstar's persistency of cash flows are more aggressive than Sell rated Telsey but you can see the outline for how the stock on Telsey's multiples it looks like Macau is being valued without value in the equity layer and Macau bonds at slightly below par. I think when you couple that with the real estate value here, the stock looks worthy of review.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely worthy of review.  Let me try to raise a few points:

 

- the valuation for Boston could be difficult to nail down. Whatever potential value in 2018 needs to be discounted back to now. How sure we are about the EBITDA forecast? Will there be new debt needed to fund the construction? Maybe we should be careful to assign $1.5bn to what is now only a plan.

 

- Of the $8bn gross debt as of 2Q, the US had $5.2bn according to 10Q. Most of the cash appeared to be sitting in the US. Still the US should have $4bn net debt. But where the debt resides should not matter much. What's concerning is it's possible both the US and Macau need to raise more debt to fund construction in each market.

 

- given we have been focusing on EBITDA, I wanted to do a sanity check from an earnings perspective. In 1H15, Wynn Macau reported net earnings of HK$1.4bn, or US$180mn. 72% of that went to Wynn, which was US$130mn. In 1H15, WYNN however made only $12mn in earnings. It was partly caused by a loss on debt of $120mn. But even if we adjust for that, it appears that the LV assets barely had earnings. The LV assets however did generate EBITDA of $230mn. I am not familiar with the US assets, and wonder if SI or someone else could help reconcile those numbers.

 

- taking out the Macau market value, it seems the US assets are being valued by the market at roughly $6bn, or equity value of $2bn. If we try to reverse engineer what the market is thinking, it could be - 13 x $460 (1H15 EBITDA annualized) = 6bn. And not much value is being assigned to Boston yet.

 

- Just to summarize, the difference between Morningstar and the market could be 1) Morningstar assigns $1.5bn to Boston, where the market may not be assigning much, 2) Morningstar assumes LV EBITDA to be about 20% above the current runrate, 3) it uses a slightly higher multiple, 4) it got the US debt wrong by $1-2bn.

 

I do hope there are glaring mistakes in the above, and by discussing we together can build a strong case for WYNN, because all we want is cheap stocks. So far the case is not clear for me. But I look forward to hearing more thoughts.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it seems the concern is on balance sheet.

 

------------------------

Deutsche Bank analysts remain confident that Wynn will successfully cannibalize Cotai enough to generate a return that implies upside in shares.

 

“While we expect little in the way of incremental supply stimulating demand, we remain confident that WYNN, a historical EBITDA fair share premium generator,” will cannibalize Cotai.

 

“Furthermore, we think far too much has been made of WYNN potentially having balance sheet issues.”

 

“We don’t believe we have been shy when it comes to our outlook for Macau and the challenges we believe remain with respect to the Cotai pipeline. That being said, we believe WYNN shares have been punished enough, largely due to the estimate revisions, but more specifically, on a relative basis, because of the perceived risk that WYNN has a balance sheet issue on the horizon.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, Wynn’s intrinsic value hinges upon what you think will happen in Macau:

 

Worst case scenario I have Wynn Macau + Encore doing around 600m in EBITDA for 2015, base case around 650m. Palace is opening first quarter 2016, but so are a number of competing resorts: Studio City (Melco) is opening October 2015, MGM’s casino is expected to open for the summer of 2016, LVS is also building a number of properties on Cotai.

 

I cannot realistically see revenue and EBITDA figures for individual casinos stabilizing or recovering given the sudden influx of supply combined with what I expect to be continued implosion in demand due to 1) continued economic sluggishness on the mainland, 2) reluctance on the part of the Chinese noveau riche to show off their wealth in light of the anti-corruption campaigns (though they do seem to be dying down a bit) and 3) continued crack down on junket and money laundering in Macau. Now it is hard to get relatively reliable figures on how much of gambling revenues is from corruption / money that is being laundered, but it is reasonable to suspect that a material portion of revenues from VIPs is from that source (and 2/3 of Macau gaming revenues come from VIPs, only 1/3 from mass market). I have base case 2016 EBITDA figures of around 460mn for Wynn Macau + Encore properties and another 280m for Palace (300m annualized). I can see EBITDA for Wynn Macau + Encore possibly declining to 300m, depending on what the party decides to do from now till Spring. Slapping a 8x multiple on the base case figure gives us a valuation of 6bn, which of course does not take into account the debt. Even with a 12x multiple, valuation would only be around 9 bn. With net debt at around 4bn, equity value would only be around 5 bn, x72% which is around $36/share.

 

The thing is I've found the actions of the Macau government (and party) in the last couple of months peculiar in that they seem to have been intentionally and counter-intuitively hostile to the industry. For example:

 

1) The anti-smoking legislation that it is looking to pass, for instance, treats casinos more strictly than any other "semi-public" area. Smoking lounges are allowed in airports and similar places. But in Macau, the gvt originally approved plans under the new law for smoking lounges in certain areas, subject to sufficient protection for employees. After many casinos spent substantial amounts of money complying with the new rules , the Government performed a policy U-turn just days before the new law became effective, and declared that no smoking would be allowed anywhere, not even in smoking lounges (many of which had been built in reliance of the previous Government position).

 

2) Operators have also been building new properties, many on reliance of specific Government assurances on its approvals for them to run certain numbers of table games. These assurances were repeated to investors and financiers when feasibility studies were being drawn up and approved by the gaming companies, and massive amounts of money were invested on the basis of those assurances. However, again, recent moves by the Government have seen official support and permissions to run games strictly curtailed in those casinos which are now coming to completion, in many cases entirely destroying the carefully calibrated financial viability of their operations and jeopardizing both returns, but also jobs and possibly also social stability.

 

3) On a similar note, the Government's aim of creating a broader, general tourism-based economy is laudable, and brilliant for all concerned, but cannot ever happen without massive additional investment in infrastructure - in particular, transport infrastructure (Macau has a very underdeveloped public transport system). But Government revenues to do this come primarily from gaming tax - so the massive drop in gaming revenues will ultimately make the goal of a more diverse economy even harder to attain. After all, VIP gamers don't need to use public transport, but most other tourists, coming to visit the other entertainment offerings in Macau, would. And right now it really is no fun at all trying to get around Macau other than by car...

 

It's quite hard to analyze a situation when 1) the party has so much influence over the outcome of said situation, and 2) their actions don't seem to make much sense from an economic point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's quite hard to analyze a situation when 1) the party has so much influence over the outcome of said situation, and 2) their actions don't seem to make much sense from an economic point of view.

 

That is the key. The gaming volume depends critically on what actions the governments will take. Clearly a lot of the actions are not economic; they are political. Politics trump economics everywhere.

 

The Macau government is hurting but not nearly as much as the gaming operators. Taking 39% of gross revenue (vs. like 7% in Vegas?), they continue to run a large surplus.

 

Of course, what's happening now could be a phase, and the priority could change back to economics at some point. 

 

But can all this be modeled in a spreadsheet? I think not.

 

In the end Macau may still be a massive success. But it's just difficult to handicap.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

It's pretty clear and has been mentioned many times that Macau is what matters the most for Wynn right now.  The problem is that Wynn is facing serious issues in Macau with declining revenue and major losses in the VIP market that wont likely be coming back anytime soon.

 

The $4.1 billion Wynn Palace couldn't be opening at a worse time.  Not only is the market currently declining, but the Wynn is going to struggle to get enough table allocation.  The vast majority of revenue is generated by the casino portion in Macau, unlike Las Vegas.  The Chinese also have a much higher liking for tables game, particularly baccarat.

 

Melco-crown recently opened their Studio City resort on Cotai and only received 200 tables with another 50 promised in 2016, but company management      expected 400 tables.  Their credit facilities actually had covenants that required at least 400 tables, which Melco-crown is now in violation of.

 

The Macau government has reiterated its goals of 3% annual table growth, which would mean that only 180 tables would be added in 2016.  The Wynn Palace has a stated table capacity of 500 and the Parisian Macao (Venetian) has a capacity of 450 tables, additionally the smaller Louis XIII will have a 66 table capacity, all of these Casinos will open in 2016.  So now we have a situation where there is demand for 1,016 tables but the official Macau government allocation is 180 tables, of which 50 have already been promised to Studio City ... leaving just 130 tables for the new mega casinos.

 

While I don't expect the Macau government to stick with their official numbers, I would expect the new Casino's to receive a disappointing amount of table allocation.  I would expect the Wynn to receive an initial allocation of 200 tables, similar to the Studio City property.  Wynn made things worse when he pissed off the local Chinese officials with his complaints about the table allocation process on his Q3 conference call.  So now you have some possibility of retaliation and even lower table allocation.  If the Macau Government stick to their official 3% numbers, the two new mega casinos are screwed.

 

Wynn is seriously at the mercy of the Macau government and the Chinese Economy.  I see some tough times ahead for Wynn, especially with its current debt load ... which will likely only grow as new casinos that wont open for years are built in Boston and possibly Singapore.  If things don't go Wynn's way in China they may well find themselves in the type of dire situation LVS was in early 2009.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty clear and has been mentioned many times that Macau is what matters the most for Wynn right now.  The problem is that Wynn is facing serious issues in Macau with declining revenue and major losses in the VIP market that wont likely be coming back anytime soon.

 

The $4.1 billion Wynn Palace couldn't be opening at a worse time.  Not only is the market currently declining, but the Wynn is going to struggle to get enough table allocation.  The vast majority of revenue is generated by the casino portion in Macau, unlike Las Vegas.  The Chinese also have a much higher liking for tables game, particularly baccarat.

 

Melco-crown recently opened their Studio City resort on Cotai and only received 200 tables with another 50 promised in 2016, but company management      expected 400 tables.  Their credit facilities actually had covenants that required at least 400 tables, which Melco-crown is now in violation of.

 

The Macau government has reiterated its goals of 3% annual table growth, which would mean that only 180 tables would be added in 2016.  The Wynn Palace has a stated table capacity of 500 and the Parisian Macao (Venetian) has a capacity of 450 tables, additionally the smaller Louis XIII will have a 66 table capacity, all of these Casinos will open in 2016.  So now we have a situation where there is demand for 1,016 tables but the official Macau government allocation is 180 tables, of which 50 have already been promised to Studio City ... leaving just 130 tables for the new mega casinos.

 

While I don't expect the Macau government to stick with their official numbers, I would expect the new Casino's to receive a disappointing amount of table allocation.  I would expect the Wynn to receive an initial allocation of 200 tables, similar to the Studio City property.  Wynn made things worse when he pissed off the local Chinese officials with his complaints about the table allocation process on his Q3 conference call.  So now you have some possibility of retaliation and even lower table allocation.  If the Macau Government stick to their official 3% numbers, the two new mega casinos are screwed.

 

Wynn is seriously at the mercy of the Macau government and the Chinese Economy.  I see some tough times ahead for Wynn, especially with it's current debt load ... which will likely only grow as new casinos that wont open for years are built in Boston and possibly Singapore.  If things don't go Wynn's way in China they may well find themselves in the type of dire situation LVS was in early 2009.

 

I've got no comment on the debt load and the number of tables, but I largely think the loss of VIP revenue is overblown. It was my understanding that the margins for the retail gambling business were far higher than VIP tables and the retail business is still growing and will likely to continue to grow in the future. Furthermore, just as Vegas evolved, I would expect Macau to become more family friendly in the future with more shows, attractions, etc. which would improve the room rates from the hotels.

 

I haven't done any modeling of FCF against debt repayment etc. yet, but I'm interested in the name the drop in recent revenues doesn't bother in the long-term perspective. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got no comment on the debt load and the number of tables, but I largely think the loss of VIP revenue is overblown. It was my understanding that the margins for the retail gambling business were far higher than VIP tables and the retail business is still growing and will likely to continue to grow in the future. Furthermore, just as Vegas evolved, I would expect Macau to become more family friendly in the future with more shows, attractions, etc. which would improve the room rates from the hotels.

 

I haven't done any modeling of FCF against debt repayment etc. yet, but I'm interested in the name the drop in recent revenues doesn't bother in the long-term perspective.

 

The Q2 2015 VIP baccarat revenue was $31.56 billion, 55.3% of all Macau revenue and was a 45% decline compared to 2014.  The shrinking VIP business is still really important to Macau.  I agree that they will need to move to making more revenue from the mass market.

 

As far as table allocation goes, for Q2 2015 more than 90% of revenue came from table games, with baccarat and VIP baccarat being the lions share of those numbers.  Table allocation is very critical for Macau Casinos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The VIP margin story isn't really correct. In unit profit terms per table they are about the same.  VIP is much lower margin but GGR/table is much higher.

 

The VIP business is till a big profit stream and really no one knows what the sustainable level is.

 

Same thing with the table allocations.

 

The scale of GGR is Macau is so big compared to anywhere else and so much of that was/is driven by Chinese corruption who really knows where it turns out.

 

Unless you start to imply something way lower for sustainable ROIC its too hard and idea to me.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Macau was badly understood and still is.

 

Alpaca - the 3% table growth is calculated on a compound, not annual basis. So more tables are given when more properties are open. Macau government is not dumb. What's made them difficult is not their lack of common sense, it's their calculation of politics. They self police based on what Beijing might be thinking.

 

The sustainable demand is impossible to know for sure, given the current volumes have been severely impacted by a double whammy - a weakening economy and the anti-corruption campaign. Chinese people are highly sensitive to political winds (you have to in order to survive), so even mass volumes have declined heavily. The point is neither the peak volume nor the current volume tells you much about LT demand.

 

For people who thinks Macau GGR is too high. There is no casino gambling in Hong Kong so people bet on horses. The annual gambling revenue in horse racing in HK is in the order of $13bn. This is roughly similar to the horse racing revenue in the US. Well, HK has 7mn people. The US has 320mn.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt the cultural propensity to gamble is quite high. You can see that in Singapore GGR as well.  The issue really is that if you say Singapore= Macau ex- corruption which is still a staggering GGR/table and implies 20%+ roic, the stocks aren't cheap..

 

Singapore= Macau ex- corruption?

 

How would that make any sense? In Macau casinos were being built to meet the demand of 1.3bn people on the mainland. I am sure some Chinese visit the Singapore casinos, but they are not comparable.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...