True, and the only special dividend LVS has ever issued corresponded to an impending hike in the tax on dividends effective 1/1/13.
A lot of companies that don't normally do special divvys did THAT one, and the ones most incentivized to do it were the ones controlled by billionaires, who are the shareholders most targeted by Obama's dividend tax increase.
I would add that all those tax-related, special dividends removed a lot of "investment capital" from a lot of companies... in many cases, that was investment capital that might have otherwise been deployed by those companies into jobs-producing expansions...
... which, of course, is the reason why Obama-style taxes on those with investment capital (eg: the wealthiest citizens) results, in the aggregate, in the depletion of jobs in America.
They won't. They don't police these boards.
Now watch... the moment Tony sees this thread on page one, he'll shoot up and start banging away on his keyboard like a maniac to shove it to page 2 just as fast as his scrawny little fingers can get it there (LOL).
Sickest poster on yahoo, for sure.
Their commentary about carrying debt issued to portfolio companies, rather than syndicating it (jettisoning) as they have in the past, would indicate that that is one way they intend to apply their working capital to their operations.
Their rationale was twofold: 1) They would collect the interest paid and; 2) As the debtor, they wouldn't likely be as restrictive toward the said portfolio company also issuing a dividend... and since ACAS either owns, or majority owns, the portfolio company, they get the divvy too.
This sea change of carrying the paper is obviously in response to investor angst about ACAS's low cash flow and NOI, given that it's primarily a BDC that's invested in "growth" companies that produce little income.
The FLIP side of that, is that it would consume a lot of the company's free cash flow, and thus potentially leave less of it lying around to use for ACAS share buybacks similar to the very large one they did in Q3 of over 13 million shares.
There's always a tradeoff, but I like that they're balancing such investment better with the share buybacks, even if the buybacks are at a 30% discount. You've got to optimize the business you're in, or the discount will persist.
I hear you. LVS is very "transparent" into the out years, and that makes for a good carrot.
With other stocks, like tech stocks, there's very little such transparency, because you never know what the next gadget is going to be at a place like Apple, how well it'll be received, or whether it'll stand up to the galaxy S6 or whatever.
With LVS, you can better guage the impact of the bridge, trains, Parisian, and other such high barriers to entry into such a bricks-and-mortar industry, and as such, it deserves a P/E multiple premium due to that transparency.
I own less LVS than I amassed in 2009 today, because I sold about 4% of my position in late 2010 after the ramp-up of MBS pushed LVS modestly into "euphoric" territory (IMHO). I would have sold substantially more than 4% if LVS had pushed into the $60s at that time and started to look like 2007 all over again, which it didn't.
By the same token, I'm very vigilent in looking for "euphoria" now, and I don't see it for reasons I stated in the lead post above. Even though LVS is richly valued, it's value is still good "today", relative to the growth that I anticipate in 2014 and beyond.
A comment on Galaxy's "largest, undeveloped landbank in Macau"...
Most of that landbank is contained within one, giant parcel, where the "galaxy cotai" resort is located.
What I'm wondering is: how many casinos can a concessionaire operate on a single parcel?
If it were not for just 1 exception that I know of, my observation is that it's 1 casino per parcel.
Remember that Cotai Central has 2 casinos because it's built on 2 parcels... sites 5 and 6.
The only exception I know of is cotai parcel 1, where both Venetian and the 4-seasons resort have separate
Perhaps the 2, largest parcels (Venetian's and Galaxy Cotai's) are exclusively allowed 2 casinos each.
Willie, are you aware that you can post an unlimited number of characters out here, so long as you paste them into the text box without modifying the text in any way?
Saves on having to post a good piece like this in 2, separate posts.
These are definately looking like they'll end up being joint ventures.
LVS's relatively deep pockets and proven examples would likely jump their equity stake relative to other players.
He won't disappear, qz, unless yahoo bars him, which they won't... they simply don't care because they don't allocate any resources to this application.
You can't view a "manic-obsessive" from a normal perspective, qz. People with that disorder are driven 95% by the attention they get, and barely 5% by any admiration that may come from it. Think of it like a housecat that knows it's master doesn't approve of him jumping onto the counter, but if that's the only way it can get attention, it will jump up anyway, so long as the result isn't something too "painful"...
... and there's no pain in shooting up meth everyday and pounding 1,000, 1-liner messages into a God-forsaken message board when the message board administrator has been defunded by Yahoo.
... it looks like the company may be buying back stock after the Q3 earnings fallout.
Now, if we could just get Carl Icahn involved, now that Paulson has caved.
Agreed. Unless you can post some kind of current metric or company strategy to support your contention that the stock will blast off to the upside, as you suggest...
... there's no point in continuing this discussion.
The best thing yahoo could do for these boards is to eliminate the ability to create alias's.
I'll bet you can't name one, single, constructive thing that they are ever used for.
Anyone "hiding" their identity with an alias can have only one objective... "deceit"
All of the good posters I know on these boards have no need to create an alias.
Tony turned this board into a political board during the last presidential campaign and began creating a half-dozen alias's each day beginning with "ObamaHussein" to make his intentions in that regard very clear to everyone. Today, he shoots up Meth every morning, then goes on a posting binge for upwards of 36 hours straight, sometimes posting upwards of 800 to 900, one-letter posts onto this board for the sole purpose of completely dominating it with the sewage that he's become so well known for.
Don't bother complaining to Yahoo... they don't care.
The posters who prefer to talk intelligently about LVS have moved to other boards, now that this one is trashed and used almost entirely for politics per Tony's intent.
Sorry you didn't get the memo.
In a "free america", it doesn't seem as thought the President should be determining what is a legitimate amount for me to live on and what is not...
... just like Mr. Obama shouldn't be telling me what kind of health insurance coverage I should have, and what I should not.
On TV, Mr. Obama keeps saying that my previous insurance was bad... NO IT WASN'T... who is HE to tell me what I want and what I Don't!...
... so now he's FORCING me to buy a policy I don't want, and can't afford!
If our grandfathers could see this kind of "authoritarianism" in the U.S., they would turn over in their graves for SURE.
I'm concerned with the "future" of ACAS, not with the company they were a half a decade ago.
The only thing relevant "now" about the ACAS from "then" is the half a billion dollars worth of loss carryovers from that era.
Is there anything else you can offer as to why you feel ACAS is about to launch it's PPS into the stratosphere as you suggest?
... as compiled by the aggregate 2014 estimate by first call.
That means that today's drop reduces LVS's PEG ratio to less than 1.0, since the first-call 2014 estimate is more than a 20% rise above the aggregate's 2013 estimate.
As I've said, while I think the 84 cent Q4, 2013 estimate is about what I would expect, I think the $3.62 estimate for 2014 is conservative, and I think that 2014 will come in closer to $3.80...
... meaning that I view LVS's forward PEG ratio as even lower than analysts do.
Given that LVS is now significantly a "momentum" stock, it's important to find "value" in the stock in order to justify continuing to own it as I do.
The sub-1.0 PEG ratio provides that value, but otherwise, LVS is much more fully-valued than it was years ago.
Many factors, from under-utilized capacity at SCL, to the macau supply crunch, to parisian to the bridge... indicate that this company should be able to grow more than 20% for years to come, but a surge to more than 23 to 25 times next year's anticipated earnings will have me selling some LVS, so we'll see over the next few months if sufficient "euphoria" sets in to justify some selling.
... as compiled by first call.
Personally, I think LVS will improve their 2014 earnings by quite a bit more than 19%, and that puts the forward PEG ratio comfortably under 1.0.