报告名称：SJM Holdings(00880.HK)In line with expectations： less scope for cost cutting vs.
报告类型：港股研究
报告日期：2015-08-13
研究机构：高盛集团有限公司
股票名称：澳博控股
股票代码：00880
页数：7
简介：What surprised us
SJM’s 2Q15 revenue and EBITDA fell 16% and 18% qoq to HK$12.2bn andHK$1bn, in line with our estimates, implying 0.2% qoq margin slippage to8.4% (vs. 8.6% in 1Q), mostly due to other self-promoted and satellitecasinos, where margin dropped 2.1% and 0.4% on negative operatingleverage. With stringent cost controls and a favorable revenue mix shifttoward mass-market, which reached 34% of GGR (vs. 1Q’s 27%), GrandLisboa margin rose 1% to 13.9%. Overall SJM rolling turnover andmass/slot GGR fell 21% and 10% qoq (vs. 15% and 9% for the industry),implying a further 0.9% market share decline to 21.8% (VIP: -1.6% to 23.4%;mass/slot: -0.1% to 20.3%). Interim DPS was cut 55% yoy to HK$0.1,implying 32% payout (vs. 31% in 1H14). Dividend payout policy of no lessthan 50% of earnings is unchanged—we model 70%, same as 2014.
Key takeaways: (1) In view of the weak visitation trend at Grand Lisboa(29k daily, vs. 38k in 1H14), SJM is trying to draw more foot traffic byadding bus capacity and reconfiguring its layout (e.g., relocating Noodle &Congee Corner Restaurant to higher floor to free up more space). It alsotook back some hotel rooms from junkets for mass market (i.e., 55% vs.42% of room inventory in 1Q) with a target to bring occupancy back tohigh-80% to low-90% in 3Q (vs. 80.1% in 2Q). With all these initiatives, itsmass-market GGR has outperformed the market in July. (2) Mgmt. guidesHK$50mn annualized cost savings by year-end, only 2% of GL’s opex byour estimate. They acknowledged it has less scope to reduce headcountsince most of its staff are Macanese locals engaging in gaming functions.
What to do with the stock
On results, we revise our 2015-17E EBITDA by 1-2% and 12m SOTP-basedTP to HK$10.8 (from HK$10.7). We still believe SJM offers less leverage toGGR recovery. Maintain Neutral. Risks: better/worse GGR and margin.
下载地址：SJM Holdings(00880.HK)In line with expectations： less scope for cost cutting vs.
