永利渡假村 (WYNN) 2015 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good afternoon.

My name is Selena and I will be your conference operator today.

At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the second-quarter 2015 earnings conference call.

(Operator Instructions).

I will now turn today's conference call over to Mr. Stephen Cootey.

Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you and good afternoon.

Joining the call on behalf of the Company today are Steve Wynn, Matt Maddox, Kim Sinatra, myself, here in Las Vegas.

Also on the phone are the operational management team from both our Las Vegas and Macau properties.

Before we get started, I just wanted to remind everyone that we will be making forward-looking statements under Safe Harbor federal securities law and those statements may or may not come true.

And with that, I'm going to turn the call over to Mr. Wynn.

Good afternoon, everybody.

You have seen our numbers.

They are, I think, probably no surprise to anybody.

Macau continues to be more of a question than a certainty as we head through 2015 and towards our opening on March 25 of Wynn Palace in 2016.

Our construction and our staffing is on schedule.

We have made some adjustments in the staffing until we have a clearer picture of the game total that will be allocated to us by the government.

But in the meantime, we are finishing this building.

I would mention, as I have in the past, that the design of this building and its creation over five years ago was done in anticipation of market conditions perhaps not as critical as they are today, but under the general assumption that the robust and unprecedented growth in the market would not be the kind of growth we would be experiencing in 2016 and that we would face competition for which we had great respect.

Our fellow operators in Macau are intelligent, they are extremely well financed, and they're quick to learn and to accommodate the things that they see in other hotels and to accommodate changes necessitated by their own experience in that market.

It is a very, very sharp place.

The buildings that are built represent remarkable diversifications into non-gaming attractions, and, of course, that adds to the competitive nature of our situation.

We designed the hotel, as I say, in anticipation of just such an environment, perhaps not quite as critical as the one we are facing, but we said we had to be clearly, clearly a superior choice competitively.

We enjoy a segment of the market that we wanted to continue to enjoy, the upper premium, the VIP business, and the top end of the mass marketing.

We enjoy that advantage today and we intended to increase that advantage by the opening of Wynn Palace.

Such were the assumptions of its creation and I'm happy to say that that was the result of the construction and the development.

Our staff, headed by Mr. Gamal Aziz and Ian Coughlan and Linda Chen in China, are doing an excellent job in preparing the place to make a good opening and make a good impression on our guests so that, hopefully, the Wynn Palace will be everybody's first choice when they go to Cotai.

In Las Vegas, we are enjoying a comfortable business, I think is the right word for it.

It's not an aggressive growth, by any means, but we are enjoying non-casino revenue that is acceptable.

Our slot machine and table games are growing, with one exception.

This should come as no surprise to professionals on this call, and that is that since we were the operator of choice for the international baccarat business, namely from China, that if anything interfered with that business, we would, of course, experience more of a penalty in that regard than our competitors since we had more of those kinds of people attending our hotel.

When that group is diminished, we, of course, feel it critically.

So our baccarat table business has suffered, mainly because of the absence of a number of Asian players.

But business from Latin America is still good and perhaps that explains why we had clearly the most powerful performance in this quarter of any operator in America.

And with that, I think I have summarized whatever I can add to the conversation today and I will be glad to take questions, along with my colleagues.

(Operator Instructions).

Joe Greff.

Hello, Joe?

I think we lost him.

Carlo Santarelli.

Steve, just in relation to some of the comments you made around Cotai, what is your level of comfort with the property opening later in the first quarter?

And secondly, how many iterations have you guys gone through recently to readjust the casino floor of that property for the new Macau that you currently envision here over the medium term?

I think, first of all, I am comfortable about the March 25 date.

The government happily gave us 100% of our last and final request for construction labor, and so we are fully staffed at 7,000 construction workers.

So we're pretty sanguine at the moment, although anything is subject to change.

We are sanguine about the March 25 date, but I want to add that when we say March 25, the way this Company operates, we always want to have two weeks, 10 days to two weeks, of practice where we let all of our employees stay in all of the rooms, order room service, use the telephones, have our computer systems fail, have our elevators have a chance to fail.

We go to our backup systems.

We use all of our emergency systems.

We deal the games to each other.

We do everything to anticipate what our guests, when we open to the public, will experience, so that if there are any glitches or shortcomings, we experience them, not the public.

So when I say we open on March 25, the hotel will be a campus in February, and if anything interferes with our ability to use March as a campus to practice, then, of course, I wouldn't hesitate to postpone the opening by a week or two.

But when I said March 25, that anticipates all of the things that are necessary to open a hotel on Wynn's standard.

Matt, you can talk about adjustments to the floor and the compendium.

Sure.

So, we continue to look at various iterations and the mass market clearly is taking a little more of a roll out at Cotai right now than it was previously, 18 months ago, and the way the facility was designed, it is very flexible and functional.

So, right now, we have a program in place for both Peninsula and Cotai that we are comfortable with.

Great, thanks, Matt, and if you wouldn't mind just one housekeeping item.

Could you clarify or quantify the hold adjustment in the period in Las Vegas relative to theoretical?

Is that about $9 million, somewhere in that ballpark?

That's about right, and in Macau, if you notice on the mass-market side, you are between $12 million to $15 million.

And what would -- the new theoretical in Macau is somewhere in the 20 to 22 range?

Yes, we put our last 12 months in there at 20, which is what we are using, so it is (multiple speakers)

And I have taken exception to that with Matthew privately.

I think the right number is closer to 22 because of the dominance of baccarat.

Understood.

But you can -- if you look at us historically and in calculating hold percentage, because we have so many buy-ins at the cage, which is completely atypical from the American experience -- usually we know exactly what the drop or the handle is in a casino in Las Vegas.

For those of you who may not be quite familiar with this term, we count -- when someone gambles at a table, at any table in the world, they have to buy chips.

They come to the table, they give the money to the dealer, the dealer drops the money in the box and slides the chips out of the rack to the customer.

And that's the buy-in.

The other way that people get chips is with credit, and when they take a marker, if they are approved by the supervisor in charge or the team leader, then the chips are slid across the table out of the rack, just as if they had paid cash, and a credit slip associated with a marker goes into the box in lieu of cash.

Now there are other pieces of paper in the box that represent changes to the inventory in the rack during the eight-hour shift, fills if there is a need for more chips when the customers are winning or credit slips if the customers are losing and the rack gets overcrowded with the chips that are taken back.

We return them to the cage.

They don't have anything to do with handle.

What we measure is the cash and the credit slips associated with markers.

That tells us the total amount of activity.

We measure that against the changes in the opening and closing inventories of the shift and that tells us the performance of the table or the win.

In China -- and virtually no one buys chips at the cage in America, at least in our experience over the last 40-odd years, and then walks to a table and gambles.

In China, they do in fact do exactly that.

I don't know whether it is because they are using their credit card or they are cashing in whatever RMBs they have or whatever, but people go to the cage, buy chips, and then circulate around the casino and bring the gaming tokens to the table with them.

That means that when we count the boxes, it is not a measurement truly of the drop or activity in the casino, the handle it is referred to in the alternative.

So, we have started now taking the buy-ins at the cage -- at the cashier and the money and credit slips in the box.

Although in the mass casino, we don't give credit at the table, but we take the cash and the buy-ins at the cage and we try as close as we can to then re-create a comparable number that all of you would understand as handle or drop or the level of activity at the tables.

I hope I am being clear enough in this explanation.

And based upon this, we have gone back and tried to give a comparison of the real hold compared to the theoretical hold of the mass table game activity in China.

And my experience, because of the dominance of baccarat, that that number should be between 22 and 23.

Matt thinks it should be 20, but at any rate, it is arbitrary.

You can make an adjustment any way you would like.

If you look at us historically, it is what I said, 22, 23.

Matt is -- the whole financial structure of this Company is extremely conservative, as you know, so Matt decided to say, well, it is 20 and I think that is on the low side, but call it what you may.

Go ahead, Matt.

Anything else?

I hope that was clarified, how it works.

Many people don't really understand casino accounting or what handle is and I thought it might be a good idea to slide it in.

Yes, I appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Joe Greff, JPMorgan.

Two questions.

Last week, we heard from our friends at Las Vegas Sands a little bit more of ability to take out costs, along the lines of player reinvestments and direct marketing expenses and some other things as well.

Can you talk about your ability to find expenses to reduce?

Obviously, we're aware of the challenges in Macau.

And then, my second question, maybe it is for the operating guys in Macau, can you talk about the last two months or so of impact or lack of impact from Phase 2, where you might be facing some revenue -- additional revenue pressures, if you can parse through that?

Thank you.

Would you like --

Ian, why don't you answer Joe's questions?

Sure.

So on the cost side, we obviously -- two-thirds of our operating expenses are related to payroll.

In absorbing a COLA adjustment to 5%, we have made efforts to bring down our payroll costs.

We have had natural attrition throughout the year where we have not replaced people.

We're about 173.

FTE is down over the same period last year.

We continue to push voluntary time off, which seems very appealing to the workforce, and between that and overtime containment, we are looking at maybe $20 million annualized in reduced payroll this year.

We are in a marketplace where we are six to eight months out from opening Wynn Palace.

We are doing a huge amount of training on property, getting people ready for promotions to the new property, so we are being careful about reducing payroll with a need for 8,000 workers coming up between six and eight months' time.

So, we're going to migrate a number of people over to Wynn Palace, and that really is the opportunity for Wynn Macau to recalibrate back at Wynn Macau and look at the way our business is structured and streamlined in this property.

We are carrying (multiple speakers)

Looking at other -- sorry.

I am sorry.

I was listening to you, Ian, and I want to remind everybody that we are carrying extra baggage in our expenses today in spite of the reductions mentioned.

We are packing a lot of people in the Macau Peninsula operation in anticipation of Macau.

So, that is one place where our expenses are artificially inflated as we warehouse people that we are planning to take next door.

Secondly, I want to remind everybody that with the exception of maybe $1 billion, we are carrying most of the expenses of the financing of Macau in our existing financial condition.

So we have a relatively small amount of money left to pay, compared to what's in that building and in that project already, so that the impact of whatever cash flow the Palace generates will seem rather dramatic because the expenses of the capital are in.

Almost $3 billion is in already of the $4 billion, maybe a little more.

I don't know.

Matt, what is the total?

You are exactly right.

We have $1 billion outstanding on our revolver at June 30.

That's right, but we are carrying the rest of it in today's numbers, which is worth noting, I think.

Go ahead, Ian, if you have some more.

So, we are obviously watching other expenses.

We have trimmed advertising.

We are re-contracting with a number of big contracts that we have with suppliers, et cetera, so we're about 12% down quarter over quarter in our operating expenses, so we continue to watch it.

But the big opportunity is when we build in labor into Wynn Palace and we can re-form back at Wynn Macau.

We will see a drop in headcount here and we're getting ready for that.

On the revenue side, clearly the junket market continues to be challenged in the way it has been challenged for the last 12, 14 months.

On the mass casino side, we have taken advantage, as described previously, of the additional room inventory.

Currently, 51% of our room inventory is going to the mass table games and mass slot area, and that's worked out very successfully.

We clearly see difficulty at the very high level of mass.

Those players are impacted in the same way that the junket and direct players are impacted from a liquidity perspective.

But we've found a very rich stream of customers in the mid-tier, the business class of mass, and that continues to grow for us.

The grind aspect of mass is stable.

On the hotel side, you can see the numbers are still in the mid -- occupancy's still around 96% with a decent average rate.

The town has got a lot more competitive particular in Cotai with the additional of more Galaxy room inventory and more to come with Studio City, but we continue to drive high occupancy with a good rate.

Food and beverage is impacted and fine dining particularly because of the lack of junket complementaries, and that has been the pattern since late last year.

So where we can, we're driving revenues, and there has been some stability looking at junket turnover.

That's been pretty stable over the last six months and we have seen the retail revenue stabilize over the last two or three months.

The decline has softened considerably.

Great.

Thanks, Ian; thanks, Steve.

Shaun Kelley, Bank of America.

Thank you for taking my question.

Maybe just to change topics a little bit to talk for a moment about Las Vegas.

Steve, you mentioned obviously you guys continue to post some of the biggest numbers of any single property in the market.

But last quarter, I think in your comments your tone on the market had changed a little bit, and I was just curious on where do you sit now in terms of your outlook for Vegas and are things improving off the bottom and what you were seeing back in May?

You want to take that, Matt?

Sure.

So, I am sorry, Shaun, could you just -- could you repeat that one more time or -- in Las Vegas?

Yes, sure.

Just your overview on Las Vegas.

I think last quarter there was a notable tone shift, right, in terms of the outlook for forward bookings and how the summer was progressing, and just curious on where you guys sit now that we are actually in the middle of it.

Sure, I just wanted to make sure that is what you asked because Steve addressed that at the opening of the call that Las Vegas is -- one month is good and then you see June numbers come out, not so good here on the gaming side.

So Las Vegas is a grind right now, and we think we are in a good spot in our position in the business, but there is no accelerated growth going on here, in particular because of the international business.

And for example, last June we held 32% on a couple hundred million dollars.

This year, our casino is behaving normally at over 21%, but we made $60-odd million last year.

We had -- we have these -- we get the benefit of these tremendous big players, but when you have one of these giant months where you win all the money, the next year it always looks a little funny.

In the end, it all evens out, but we see these volatility fluctuations.

But our base business tends to be pretty steady, and, you know, Shaun, I guess that's the best way to explain it.

We had more Chinese play last year than we did this year, and a place like ours, our own, we can make $60 million in a month at this hotel or $70 million.

We can also make $25 million.

As I say, it evens out at the end, but when you look at it short term as we do every six or eight hours a day -- I do at least; I'm in the casino every day and on the phone with my people -- we have readjusted our floor on the Fourth of July and, interestingly enough, many of the games in Las Vegas have become marginally profitable.

Years ago, down at Binion's, they started at the craps table of giving 10 times odds.

If you bet $100 on the line, you could bet $1,000 on the free odds behind the line, if you bet the pass line.

I'm getting a little technical.

But in the old days in dice, whatever you bet on the line you could bet the same amount behind the line, and that was a whole percentage of a little under 1%.

Then they started giving double odds to -- compared to the amount of money you bet on the pass line and that lowered the house percentage to 0.57.

Then there became a pattern on the Strip of what's called the three, four, five.

Depending on what numbers you were betting on the crap table to come up before number seven came up, you could get three times odds, four times odds, or five times odds, depending -- there are pairs of numbers on a dice table.

Four and 10 have 2 to 1 odds.

Five and nine have a different set of odds and six to eight are six to five.

Well, depending on what number you were trying to get, you could get three, four, or five times odds.

That became a house advantage of 0.37.

With three dealers and a box man and half of a floor man for every table, craps is not a really profitable game at that level.

So I changed the casino.

In effect, I raised the price and I went to double odds only, except for extremely high play with a $1,000 minimum bet.

I also rearranged the floor in the casino to put our specialty games that are very popular with the public that have a higher margin and I put them in the 100% location, and I moved my less -- my games with less of a margin to secondary locations.

Those changes have worked out favorably to us in the past three weeks and that kind of re-examination -- our slot floor has been redone.

We win more money with less games now.

These are some of the reasons why we make more money than anybody else in Las Vegas.

Now, some of the operators will copy us.

You know we are not allowed to talk to one another because of obvious legal implications of price fixing, but we don't really care what the other guys do.

We run our own business the way we see we should and we are not in business to offer games that don't make money, and I don't mind saying that publicly.

So, we have done quite a bit of work in tightening up the way the casino works, and I know our competitors are on the call and they probably -- everybody knows it.

The minute you make a change like that in Las Vegas, it goes around town like wildfire.

But those are some of the things we are doing, and it touches every aspect.

We're constantly re-examining everything we do here.

We sit in my office and discuss the most fundamental aspects of this industry every single week, and we take nothing -- we are not so much concerned of what has been or what is as we are concerned about what might be.

And that's a principal truth of our Company, whether it's in China or in Las Vegas or Boston or wherever.

Next question.

Very helpful, thank you.

Harry Curtis, Nomura.

Hi, Steve.

It is a segue back to Macau, about government policy, and I'm interested in your view on how encouraged you are about the government's relaxation of the transit visas and probability that they're going to leave the smoking lounges intact?

What message do you take from that?

Well, the message I take is that acting as a group with respect and a good deal of humility, that our conversations with the government do not completely fall on deaf ears, and both of those examples you just gave are examples of the government taking input from the gaming operators and reacting in what I think was an intelligent and appropriate way.

We have a continuing dialogue with the government because their major interest is to protect the security of the jobs of the people in the city to keep harmony, tranquility, and even a very positive attitude among the citizens, whether it's in Hong Kong or Macau, about the future.

Our job as agents of change is to give input to the government in advance, if possible, of what the consequences of a given change in public policy might be.

We do so with respect and, as I say, we approach them with gratitude for being able to be there in the first place.

It has been a wonderful business experience, comparable to none that I am aware of.

And so when we talk to the government, we do so constructively and what we can do appropriately is to tell them what we think the consequences of a given situation will be.

We don't pound the table or make any demands.

We strictly say if you do that, this is likely to happen.

If you do that, then there will be another result.

And we will do our best to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative, to quote one of Johnny Mercer's old lyrics.

So I was glad to see that they allowed the smoking rooms.

There was no reason not to.

And Secretary Tam, who is very concerned about public health, finally felt as if it was okay to allow the smoking rooms to continue.

And that's a good thing.

The relaxation of the visas to allow people in China to travel freely is consistent with the reform mindedness of Xi Jinping's government and, I think, consistent with the attitude of the local government as well.

I did have a follow-up, in Las Vegas.

Just sticking with the demand on the non-casino side, and maybe, Matt, you have a sense, can put some numbers behind it, but how do you expect the balance of this year to look as far as bookings and room pricing for the balance of this year and into next year?

Is there -- does there seem to be some good -- some strong demand relative to 2015, building in 2016?

Yes, sure, Maurice?

Yes, so going forward as we look at the rest of this year, I think we will be up slightly.

I would say we are probably within 5% to 7% with respect to growth on our ADR.

Going back to the point Steven made on the non-gaming side, the second quarter actually was our best non-gaming revenue quarter ever in the Wynn Las Vegas history.

So, we feel that there is steady growth within all operational areas that are non-gaming, and again, as Steve pointed out, the only issue that we have here with respect to trying to forecast would be the international volatility on the gaming side.

And is a range of 5% to 7% a reasonable expectation for next year, based on what you have got on the books already?

It is.

Okay, that's great.

Thanks.

Felicia Hendrix, Barclays.

Steve, you just talked about the policy change in Macau, or some of the policy changes, and how gratified you are that the government seems to be listening to the operators, which is certainly a positive.

But I am curious regarding specifically the transit visa change.

Have you seen or do you expect to see any improvement in demand from that?

And then, also, do you think the current volatility in the Chinese stock market and slowing economy there could have an impact on demand in Macau?

What an interesting question.

My colleagues in China can tell you the visa aspect.

The stock market question, I will deal with.

What do you say about the visas, Linda, Gamal?

How do you feel about that?

We are hearing, Steve, the area that we are having the most growth is in the mid-tier of our mass business, and in conversations with a lot of our marketing executives, they are saying that in the last couple of months since the relaxation of the visa that they have seen an increase in the volume from that particular tier that Ian called the business class.

So, it seems to be working, but only for that segment of the market.

With regard to the stock market, the government, in an attempt to stop a sell-off, impose restrictions on people's ability to trade securities.

I am not an expert on China and I'm not even a Wall Street expert, but I am a person who has been in a public company for 40 years, and my own experience -- had I been consulted, I would have said, don't do that exactly, because if someone thinks that you're going to close the door on their ability to sell or trade their shares, you can only do that for a certain length of time and then the minute you finish doing it, the people scamper for the door because there is a loss of trust.

So interfering with the markets tend to produce -- is counterproductive.

It tends to accentuate people's insecurity, which leads to selling.

So I hope that they're relaxing that, they are backing out of that, and I hope they do it more affirmatively for the sake of the market.

Now that's not really my concern because our stock can trade at level A or level B. We don't pay very much attention to our stock price, per se.

We pay attention to the underlying performance of the Company and those factors associated with performance that are within our control, which is why every week we grind on everything in this building from the use of every square foot of our real estate and our structures to our plans for the future.

But this stock price and other stock prices in China have been subject to some great volatility lately, and I don't know that shutting the door on trading is a long-term healthy move, but, again, I am not part of the planning people that run such things, and I know that historically that sort of thing has produced the opposite effect that it attempts to create.

But maybe, Gamal, have you heard from any -- or Linda, have you heard from any of your people if the activities there are having an effect on demand at all?

Not from our team, Felicia, but you're hearing in the market that all these margin calls that are taking place are going to affect the junkets and their ability to collect.

The junkets themselves, some of them were involved in the market, but all of this is, in my opinion, just short-term noise.

And I don't think it is going to have any long-term effect.

Okay, great.

That's helpful.

And then, Steve, just as my follow-up, I'm just wondering if you can update us on the latest of what you are hearing from Japan?

Are you getting the sense that gaming legislation could be closer?

Matt was there two weeks ago.

I will let him answer.

I think that they have a lot of very complicated legislative issues in Japan and that the integrated resort bill is not at the top of the list.

It is important to the LDP, but there are things that are much more important, so I still am in the wait-and-see mode.

Okay, thanks, Matt.

Thomas Allen, Morgan Stanley.

So in the past few months, there has been some speculation in the press about potential M&A in the gaming space.

So, I'd just like to hear your thoughts about the potential of M&A in gaming and maybe Wynn's appetite to participate.

Thanks.

Our approach to that issue is very simple to explain.

Anytime that a construction project, a change in operating procedure, or an acquisition or a merger would result in a stronger company at the conclusion of such a transaction, we are very interested in it.

We discuss it extensively and then follow through if it is appropriate.

As we sit here today, we have never had such a opportunity presented to us that we thought was acceptable.

That doesn't mean that at some point in the future such a thing couldn't happen or that such an M&A, to use your term, a merger and acquisition, wouldn't -- would make sense.

But big for the sake of big is not a thing that I subscribe to, as you know and I have said so before.

We have a certain kind of a brand.

It is flexible and adjustable, for sure, but on the other hand, I am more interested about tomorrow's newspaper than yesterday's newspaper.

And we do a certain thing very well.

We build and develop projects that usually, room for room, inch for inch, pound for pound, outperform their neighbors.

The best place to see that at the present time is Las Vegas.

As far as Cotai goes, and Macau, when we open Wynn Palace, we are going to get a much more interesting comparison about the performance of the horses in the race.

We are about to enter the starting gate in Cotai in a few months, and then we're going to have a real interesting -- we are going to have a real interesting turn around the track.

But as far as today, M&A is the kind of option that, of course, always exists.

For a price, you can buy anything, I suppose, and some people find it in their mutual best interest to join up from time to time because the net result is that two and two equals five.

But really, it has to be two and two equals five.

If two and two equals four, it seems to me a lot of trouble for nothing.

I would rather build our own stuff.

Is that a helpful answer to you?

It is.

Thank you.

I don't have anything to report today.

We are not involved with any active discussions at the moment.

We talk about everything among ourselves, of course.

Thanks.

(Operator Instructions).

Robin Farley.

I wonder if you could give a view on -- for the opening of Wynn Palace, I understand that you have the workers there, that you're fully staffed in terms of construction workers.

But do you think that given maybe the soft opening post the Galaxy opening that there is -- that the government may want to further spread out the opening of new supply and new resorts into the market?

Robin, that question assumes that I know what the government has in terms of its long-term strategy about employment.

The only thing I know about the government that we get from them is they really want to see, number one, people who live in Macau being promoted from within, which is, of course, one of our major goals and, I can say, one of our major accomplishments.

They want a better life for the people that work in the industry and all of our employees are shareholders in this Company, 100% of them.

As to whether they want to spread out the openings or they're actively -- your suggestion, I guess, means would they do something to delay in opening in order to spread it out?

Yes.

Well, I have never been told that that was their goal, nor have I ever heard from a third party that they wanted to do that.

You could surmise that by restricting the flow of construction workers that it had that effect, but there are similarly other explanations for the amount of construction workers that were parsed out in the past, having to do with traffic and congestion and local population being distressed if the streets are overcrowded and things like that.

The government is very sensitive to the mood of the public in Macau.

You know, they had those demonstrations in Hong Kong and they didn't have any in Macau, and that, of course, is favorably observed by the central government and is one of the major goals of Chief Executive Fernando Chui.

He wants harmony in the city and I think that most of the decisions that he has made have been to create that environment.

I don't think they have ever tried to stop somebody from opening and I would be surprised, Robin, if that philosophy was ever articulated, but it certainly hasn't been to us.

Okay, thanks.

And there are no further questions at this time.

Do you have any closing remarks?

No, no.

Does anybody in the family -- Gamal, Linda Chen, Ian, Frank over in Macau?

Maurice, do you have anything you would like to add on behalf of the American operation?

Steve Cootey?

No (multiple speakers).

Matt, you?

All finished.

Kim on the legal front, do you have --

I have nothing to add.

We are hopeful that in Massachusetts that at some point in the near future we will be treated with a little softer hand, considering that we are the largest single private investment in the history of the state and that we are bringing to that town non-casino attractions that have never been around.

We have never been a racino or a riverboat operator.

We build resorts that are much more extravagant and attractive than they would be were it not for the fact that somewhere down the hall there is a gaming room.

But we are basically in the resort business that has casinos included, and what we are bringing to Boston is a destination resort.

And we have -- the publicity has shown that we've experienced a little bit of buffeting politically and we're plowing ahead anyway.

We receive encouragement from many quarters in that community, but we get resistance from others because the casinos seem to be such a prize for whatever local community could take advantage of its presence in that community that Boston has been rather critical of us because we weren't in Boston, but we are in Everett, and in Everett, Massachusetts, we once tried to go to Boston, near the convention center when this all started, and the man in charge of conventions said, no, forget it.

That property is not available.

It was right next door to the convention center.

So Matt went down the street to another town, Everett, who were glad to see us, but unfortunately said you are going to have to clean up a chemical dump site in order to do it on the Mystic River.

Well, we thought it was worth the trouble, so we went to Everett, where 86% of the population was delighted to see us and voted to say so.

And then, finally, the citizens of Massachusetts in a plebiscite voted to support the legislation that invited a company like ours to Massachusetts.

So the table seemed to be set for -- the welcome mat seemed to be out.

We just haven't found the welcome mat yet.

But I am an eternal optimist and I'm hoping it will feel good when they stop hitting us.

And I think that's my last comment today.

Thanks, everybody.

Talk to you 90 days.

Thank you.

This does conclude today's conference call.

You may now disconnect your lines.