- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 33,627
- Points
- 0
Jan 19, 2010
CASINOS
A sure bet for S'pore
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
I REFER to last Wednesday's commentary, 'Casinos are best bet for revenue', by Mr Derek da Cunha.
He makes the point that the integrated resorts (IRs) need their casinos to make a profit, and Singapore can help. One way is to allow casinos to open before the IRs are complete.
Sure. Why not? But it is part of a bigger concern: With so much riding on the casinos, what if they don't get enough gamblers? The IRs could actually lose money.
True. Both IRs cost about $14 billion, making them among the most expensive in the world. Their debts are enormous, and it is expected to take a lot of gamblers to pay for it all.
Marina Bay Sands estimates gross profits at US$1 billion (S$1.4 billion), with the casinos generating 75 per cent of the profits.
What if the gamblers don't show up to make it happen? Heaven forbid. Would our grand experiment fail?
Absolutely not. Singapore is in a win-win situation. Construction is complete. No one is going to pull down those big, beautiful buildings or shut down the roller coasters.
The worst that could happen is that the IRs go bankrupt, but it's not as bad as it sounds. Ownership could change. A few top managers would probably be sacked. The banks might get repaid more slowly.
Mostly, however, the casinos would simply operate on a smaller scale. They might open 200 gaming tables instead of the 1,000 they are permitted now. It's no big deal, and customers probably wouldn't even notice the difference.
On the downside, shareholders could lose 100 per cent of their investment, but don't cry for them. For the most part, the owners are wealthy, foreign risk-takers who went into this with their eyes open.
Take Mr Sheldon Adelson, 76, the largest shareholder of Las Vegas Sands, which owns Marina Bay Sands. Forbes magazine estimated his wealth at
US$9 billion as at September last year. Even if no gamblers show up in Singapore, he will still survive in luxury.
The biggest effect from less gambling is simply that billions of dollars would not flow from consumers to wealthy casino owners.
Hey, that's not so bad. In fact, it's good.
Larry Haverkamp
CASINOS
A sure bet for S'pore
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
I REFER to last Wednesday's commentary, 'Casinos are best bet for revenue', by Mr Derek da Cunha.
He makes the point that the integrated resorts (IRs) need their casinos to make a profit, and Singapore can help. One way is to allow casinos to open before the IRs are complete.
Sure. Why not? But it is part of a bigger concern: With so much riding on the casinos, what if they don't get enough gamblers? The IRs could actually lose money.
True. Both IRs cost about $14 billion, making them among the most expensive in the world. Their debts are enormous, and it is expected to take a lot of gamblers to pay for it all.
Marina Bay Sands estimates gross profits at US$1 billion (S$1.4 billion), with the casinos generating 75 per cent of the profits.
What if the gamblers don't show up to make it happen? Heaven forbid. Would our grand experiment fail?
Absolutely not. Singapore is in a win-win situation. Construction is complete. No one is going to pull down those big, beautiful buildings or shut down the roller coasters.
The worst that could happen is that the IRs go bankrupt, but it's not as bad as it sounds. Ownership could change. A few top managers would probably be sacked. The banks might get repaid more slowly.
Mostly, however, the casinos would simply operate on a smaller scale. They might open 200 gaming tables instead of the 1,000 they are permitted now. It's no big deal, and customers probably wouldn't even notice the difference.
On the downside, shareholders could lose 100 per cent of their investment, but don't cry for them. For the most part, the owners are wealthy, foreign risk-takers who went into this with their eyes open.
Take Mr Sheldon Adelson, 76, the largest shareholder of Las Vegas Sands, which owns Marina Bay Sands. Forbes magazine estimated his wealth at
US$9 billion as at September last year. Even if no gamblers show up in Singapore, he will still survive in luxury.
The biggest effect from less gambling is simply that billions of dollars would not flow from consumers to wealthy casino owners.
Hey, that's not so bad. In fact, it's good.
Larry Haverkamp
