RE:RE:Do simple math to see how funny this is right nowyeah, except over the longrun I'm sure investors will see this 4.7B that Stars paid for Sky not as "debt" but rather more of as a 'vehicle' to generate more profit. Almost like a merger. There is a difference between a company that does not operate efficiently and accumulates debt and a company that takes on debt by an acquisition. Time will tell if the market approves but in the short term, I'm just not so sure we can conclusively say that this acquisition of Sky was a bad move.
The best growth is certainly organic, and you have companies that are 10-baggers here and there through organic growth. These companies did not need to finance an expansion. However, keep in mind that all of these discretionary type stocks - mgm, stars, penn, boyd, william hill - over the last 6 or so months - their share price has generally speaking followed the same pattern. So what does this tell you? It tells you that the drop in Stars may have been due to it's own circumstances/decisions (ie company specific) BUT not necessarily so. My view is that the acquisition of SKY (over the long run) would be seen in a more negative light IF sports betting was not legalized in the US and a new market opened up. Again, the acquisition of SKY is a vehicle to generate income and if it turns out that Stars does grab a decent slice of this new market, tinvestors will want to invest here...