Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Sands First Quarter 2025 Earnings Call. It is now my pleasure to turn the floor over to Mr. Daniel Briggs, Senior Vice President of Investor Relations at Sands. Sir, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Paul. Joining the call today are Rob Goldstein, our Chairman and CEO; Patrick Dumont, our President and Chief Operating Officer; Dr. Wilfred Wong, Executive Vice Chairman of Sands China; and Grant Chum, CEO and President of Sands China and EVP of Asia Operations. Today's conference call will contain forward-looking statements. We will be making those statements under the safe harbor provision of federal securities laws. The language on forward-looking statements included in our press release and 8-K filings also applies to our comments made on the call today. The company's actual results may differ materially from the results reflected in those forward-looking statements. In addition, we will discuss non-GAAP measures. Reconciliations to the most comparable GAAP financial measures are included in our press release. We have posted an earnings presentation on our website. We will refer to that presentation during the call. This presentation is being recorded. I'll now turn the call over to Rob.

Okay. Thank you, Dan. Let's begin with Macao. This is a competitive market that has not grown as we anticipated. However, we have the strongest assets in the market, and we can perform better despite the challenging macro environment. The Londoner is now fully open this time, 2,405 study rooms and suites as we prepare for Golden Week in May. Now we've completed the development projects, we expect this asset to elevate our performance. Our focus is on improving our revenue and cash flow across the portfolio. There is opportunity in every segment that shows strong results. Our business strategy remains unchanged. We have designed our capital investment program to ensure we will lead in both Macao and Singapore. We delivered $535 million of EBITDA for the quarter in Macao. SCL continues to lead the market in gaming and nongame revenue and EBITDA. We have meaningful opportunities to grow in every segment. Our objective is to grow our share of EBITDA in that market. We have a unique product advantage in terms of scale, quality, and diversity of product offers. Turning to Marina Bay Sands in Singapore, we delivered a record quarter with $605 million of adjusted property EBITDA, an extraordinary achievement by any standard. I assume this is a record EBITDA for any gaming property in the world, a pretty extraordinary performance. Mass gaming and slot win reached $778 million, reflecting 73% growth from the first quarter of 2019 and 13% growth from last quarter a year ago. The results of MBS reflect the positive impact of our gaming investment program and the growth of high-value tourism. The growing appeal of Singapore as a destination is enhanced by the robust entertainment and lifestyle calendar. We believe there is considerable runway for growth there as well. Again, thanks for joining the call. I'll turn the call over to Patrick before we go to Q&A.

Thanks, Rob. Macao EBITDA was $535 million. If we had held as expected in our rolling program, our EBITDA would have been higher by $10 million. When adjusted for lower-than-expected hold in the rolling segment, our EBITDA margin for the Macao portfolio of properties would have been 31.6%, down 280 basis points compared to the first quarter of 2024. All 2,405 rooms and suites at the Londoner Grand are now available for the upcoming May Golden Week. Now that the refurbishment process is completed, we are focused on delivering revenue and cash flow growth at the Londoner. Margin at The Venetian was 35.3%, while margin at The Plaza and Four Seasons was 35.6%. We expect margin improvement as revenue grows, and we use our scale and product advantages to better address every market segment. As the Londoner ramps up and is integrated into our Cotai offerings, our competitive position will be stronger than ever. We look forward to utilizing our entire portfolio to grow revenue and EBITDA. Now turning to Singapore. MBS's EBITDA was $605 million at a margin of 52%. Given the mix of games and demonstrated player preferences over the last 2 years, we have updated our expectation for hold on rolling play at Marina Bay Sands to 3.7%. There will naturally be fluctuations in any specific quarter given by game mix and player preference. We will continue to provide the illustrative impact of hold on our rolling play in Singapore. The record financial results of Marina Bay Sands reflect the impact of high-quality investment and market-leading products and growth in high-value tourism. We believe we are still in the early stages of realizing the benefits of our investments in Marina Bay Sands. Turning to our program to return capital to shareholders. We repurchased $450 million of LVS stock during the quarter. We also paid our recurring quarterly dividend of $0.25 per share. Before going on to Q&A, I'd like to provide an update on a New York development opportunity. We strongly believe in the development opportunity for a land-based downstate casino license in New York. We also continue to believe that the Nassau Coliseum site is the best location for that development opportunity and should be highly competitive in the New York casino licensing process. However, as we have previously stated, the company remains concerned about the impact of potential legalization of iGaming on the overall market opportunity and project returns. We are in the process of attempting to secure an agreement with a third party to whom we can transact the opportunity to bid for a casino license on the Nassau Coliseum site. This would include those that may be able to address both land-based and digital markets in New York. For Las Vegas Sands, we believe the highest and best use of our capital in the near term is to purchase LVS and SCL shares. Accordingly, LVS has decided not to bid for a casino license in New York. We believe repurchases of LVS equity through our share repurchase program will be meaningfully accretive to the company and its shareholders over the long term. Our Board has increased our share repurchase authorization to $2 billion. We look forward to continuing to utilize the company's share repurchase program to increase returns to shareholders in the future. Thanks again for joining the call today. Now let's take questions.

The first question today is coming from Carlo Santarelli from Deutsche Bank.

Rob, Patrick, thanks for your comments. As anyone could kind of see, when you look at the valuation of the Hong Kong listing and what it implies basically for the corporate and Singapore, one understands kind of the willingness and the desire to kind of repurchase shares. As you think about the two entities, though, and the various repurchases across both and your stake in the Hong Kong listing specifically, how are you guys kind of balancing the way you go about those allocations right now?

So I appreciate the question. You've heard us say in our prior calls, we see meaningful value in both LVS and SCL equity, and we're going to continue to act with this belief. So we were active during the quarter at LVS. I think our goal is to really be active in both SCL and LVS equity and continue to march towards that 74.9, and you'll see us do that. I think on the LVS side, we think the valuation, where our stock is currently, is very attractive for us. We're going to be aggressive in the way that we buy back shares than we have done previously. So we view it as an opportunity, and we're going to continue to be active in the share repurchase market for both SCL and LVS.

And then if I could, just a quick follow-up. Obviously, the decision to raise the theoretical on the VIP side in Marina Bay Sands makes sense relative to the history here over the last two years. As you look at, however, on the mass side, hold was up nicely. And I know it's always tough to guesstimate what handle would have been in a normalized hold environment and how to think about all of that. But when you look at the impact the higher hold year-over-year on the mass side, specifically had on MBS, is there any way you guys could maybe outline how you think about the potential EBITDA benefits that stem from that?

I believe the issue isn't about whether it's high-end or mass; it's about the customers' bets. This has led to discussions about smart tables, which allow us to know exact figures rather than estimate them, whether they're 3.4%, 3.6%, or 4.1%. This is the advantage we foresee in both Macao and Singapore moving forward. Ultimately, it's about the types of bets placed; it doesn't really matter if they are premium mass or base mass. The bets that I refer to as prop bets, which are more favorable to the house, have driven the hold percentage. For years, there has been uncertainty around handle, hold percentage, and false drop. Smart tables eliminate that uncertainty and provide mathematically accurate information. Our aim is to have that data available in both regions in the future.

I think the most important thing here is that while MBS obviously is impacted by hold on our rolling program, really the outperformer at Marina Bay Sands has been the mass segment. I think that really has been the story of Marina Bay Sands. Yes, I think our rolling business has improved in a meaningful way. But when you look at Marina Bay Sands and the investments that have been made there, it's really to attract high-value tourists on the mass side. Our premium mass and mass segment there has outperformed to an extraordinary level. And we think there's room to grow now that our renovation is completed. So I think it's an important story to talk about how we see the uptake of these side bets and how it has moved our hold over time. I think our team there has done great work developing game types and innovating so that we can benefit from player preferences and these more aggressive bets. But at the same time, it's really a mass driven story based on the investment and the non-gaming amenities that are driving visitation and high-value tourism. That's why you see the EBITDA that we have today.

So Rob, Patrick, then, is it fair, if you look at last year, that kind of the mass table hold was right around 20.1%, it had been kind of 18% and 19% in the prior years. Based on the theoretical that you guys are seeing with the information that you have that would be able to do so, is 20% more like that normalized level on a go-forward basis on the mass side?

I don't know, but you can look into it. The situation is similar to sports betting; when companies have flat bets, the hold percentage for one team against another is generally low. However, when they introduce side bets, that percentage increases significantly. I believe the same trend is occurring here. The mass market tends to bet more on prop bets, which is advantageous. After 20 or 30 years in this industry, people often speculate about the correct hold percentage. Is it 3.6%? Is it 2.4%? The beauty of this situation is that we'll be able to calculate the correct number mathematically based on the bets placed. By eliminating the table drop and the false drop and handle, it essentially becomes like a slot machine, allowing us to determine exactly what the hold should be. We are currently witnessing the industry's appreciation for side bets, which has proven to be incredibly beneficial. Since we are the largest baccarat provider globally, this is especially significant for our company and will positively affect EBITDA in the future. As side bets increase, the hold percentage grows. Baccarat previously had a very low profitability for the house, around 2.6% or 2.7%, primarily due to the predominance of flat bets. Now that it has risen to 3.7% and potentially up to 4%, it represents substantial value for EBITDA. In the coming year, we will have a clear understanding of the precise mathematical figure. There will be no more guessing; we'll see it fluctuate between approximately 3.5% and 4%. As these side bets become more popular, baccarat will continue to increase in value for our company since it is our main source of revenue.

And we should just caution everyone that with player preference and game mix, these percentages will move around with bet size. So we just have to be aware that this is the best that we can do in terms of providing information and we're going to continue to be optimistic about the types of games we put on the floor in terms of growth they can provide, and we'll see what they do.

One thing that is clear is that differences in bets are occurring daily, and the outcomes of these games hold significant value for the industry and for us. This is improving each day. As these bets gain more importance, EBITDA will increase. We've observed this in Singapore, and I believe it will also happen in Macao.

The next question is coming from Stephen Grambling from Morgan Stanley.

I think you mentioned that there's an effort to activate the properties and see revenue and EBITDA ramp from here as the Londoner project has generally come to completion. It looks like there's some moving parts across the different properties. I'm curious if there's any thought process on some of the ones that maybe have lagged in terms of how you will reinvigorate growth there, whether it's Venetian or others? Or is it just really a question of as the Londoner is kind of fully up and running, you'll see everything click?

Yes. Thank you, Stephen. I'll take that question. I think overall, yes, the focus will be ramping up the new product at Londoner brand. As Rob mentioned, we now have the 2,400 rooms and suites in full service. And you'll see us leveraging the asset, the new product to drive customer growth and, obviously, eventually revenues and EBITDA. But the ramp-up will take its course over the next 12 months. We're still at the early stages of it. We just got the full complement of the rooms in mid-April. As for the other properties, our intention is to maintain and grow each of the existing properties while Londoner is ramped up. So you'll see us focus across Venetian, Parisian, Four Seasons, and Sands across all of the product segments and price points. But yes, the driver of our customer growth will be the Londoner over the next 6 to 12 months.

And does the initial read in what you're seeing there change the way you think about CapEx and allocating capital across the different properties? Or is there any kind of renovations that you see in the future at some of the other properties?

I have to tell you, I think Macao is the greatest gaming market in the world. If you look at its size and you look at the potential and where its source markets are, the long-term potential there is absolutely incredible. And so we love our ability to invest there. We love the scale nature of our portfolio, the number of amenities that we have and the quality of those amenities, and now the high quality of our entire property portfolio. We think we're in a great position. And we're going to continue to invest to maintain that position. But also for growth, because we think the opportunity is there long term.

I think we will continue, Stephen, with regular upgrades and renovation of our existing assets. That's a given, given we have 33 million square feet of asset portfolio across Macao. But the major redevelopment and upgrading at the Londoner is largely complete. We'll have a few more amenities to add and restaurants. But from here on, you should expect, yes, we will continue to reinvest back into the asset base because we need to upgrade and keep up with the competition. But it will be regular renovation where we'll be taking modest amount of keys out at any one time. And you'll see that over every year, every quarter over the next several years as we upgrade the existing portfolio.

The next question is coming from Robin Farley from UBS.

I just wanted to circle back to the ramp-up you mentioned for the Londoner. You did mention that it may take 12 months. So I wonder if you could just talk a little bit about do you think that your market share results in Q1, did the new Londoner rooms contribute to that? Or would you say not really, like that that's not really indicative of where you think your market share can go? And I guess I don't know if you can give a little more color around what would happen over the next 12 months, or why it would take 12 months. I know you'll have, of course, very easy comparisons to the disruption in Q2 and Q3 last year. But that may be a little bit longer of a ramp-up period than maybe people would have expected.

We spend a significant amount of time discussing this topic, and we are highly focused on expanding our business in Macao. Unfortunately, we had 2,405 keys that we wanted to have available, but it took some time to access them. Consequently, during the quarter, we didn't have full access to all the inventory we typically would rely on. When considering that we were short about 1,700 keys on average throughout the quarter, it felt like not having a property in our portfolio. Now that we have regained our full inventory, we are determined to drive growth in this area, reclaim market share, increase EBITDA share, and boost revenue, which will enhance our margins. However, we recognize there is still work to be done, and we are aware of this. We have specific areas in Macao that we intend to focus on to improve our prospects and grow our business.

Robin, I think the reference to the 12 months is simply that in any new property of this scale, we are going to get better and better over time. That's really the point of that comment. In terms of the market share, yes, I think our results were impacted by the fact that we lost market share both against the prior year and sequentially, and we are looking, with the new assets coming online, we are looking to be competing harder for the revenues in a flat market. And we fully intend to compete with the Londoner, but also you can see some of our results in the other properties. We're looking to improve performance at Venetian as well as the other existing properties. So I think it's going to be a comprehensive effort to reactivate, engage new customer growth as well as to fully leverage the new property in Londoner Grand.

And maybe just as a follow-up, Macao has talked about wanting to review the non-gaming investments and efforts of the concessionaires. Do you have a sense of what they would like to see more of or what they have changed recently or they would be looking for more of going forward?

I'll give my view and maybe Wilfred can also chime in here in terms of the policy direction. For us, we are continuing to focus on what we've committed to the government in terms of non-gaming investments. And clearly, we've already made a significant investment in upgrading the Venetian arena at a cost of around USD 200 million. That was completed last year. That's our single biggest project that we've completed for the concession commitment. And of course, in terms of programming in terms of developing sports and mega events with strong international IP, we'll bring the NBA preseason games this October, which will be a multiyear partnership. Wilfred, do you want to add to how things are evolving in terms of the direction on non-gaming investments?

Sure. I believe the new administration has had sufficient time to assess the overall landscape of non-gaming development. They are looking to us to focus on our individual strengths as long as we maintain our overall commitment. Instead of all of us working on similar areas, they see value in each of us concentrating on specific areas. This creates opportunities for us to engage with the government to determine how we can excel in certain domains. Additionally, due to the GGR reaching a certain level, we are committed to investing an extra 20% into non-gaming initiatives, and the government is looking into the best way to coordinate the use of these funds.

The next question will be from Shaun Kelley from Bank of America.

One big picture one and then sort of one micro one, if I could. On the big picture side, just Rob or Grant, your high-level view here on just has the market dynamic in Macao changed at all as it relates to the balance between premium mass and the competition there versus base mass? I mean as I think about it, LVS has always succeeded really well when the market has been extremely full. But we've seen the visitation recover now and sort of both segments are struggling a little bit. And so I'm just kind of curious on the balance and sort of are you pivoting strategy at all to kind of lean into particularly the premium segment, if that's the healthier one right now?

Shaun, your insights are accurate. Our scale and size have been advantageous for many years, but that is becoming more challenging in an increasingly competitive segment. There are no longer segments without competition; it's tough out there. However, our assets continue to position us well. The Londoner has taken a long time to come online, but now that we have all the rooms available again, we can cater to both the base mass and premium mass markets. We've performed well with the premium segment, but we haven't seen the same success with the base mass, nor has the market offered much opportunity there. Your observations are indeed valid. We previously led in margins within that base segment, which is significantly more challenging now. This has posed a dilemma for us in Macao. Nonetheless, we are optimistic now that the Londoner is open, showcasing both scale and quality. It presents numerous opportunities for us to leverage that asset, grow, and re-enter the competitive landscape. We acknowledge our disappointment in results across all segments. We know we can improve, and we intend to. However, it's clear that the market remains intensely competitive in both the base and premium mass segments. There are no easy options left in Macao.

Yes, Shaun, to elaborate on the visitation question, while there is noteworthy growth and recovery in visitation, it is important to highlight that, as indicated in Slide 20 of Dan's presentation, this quarter's visitation has significantly been influenced by day trippers from Guangdong province due to the introduction of new multiple entry visas for Zhuhai and Hengqin. The visitation from outside Guangdong is still recovering at around 75%. This indicates that overnight visitors, who typically spend more and come from further away, are still lagging behind. As Rob mentioned, the base mass segment has proven more challenging for us, leading us to compete for revenue in the premium mass segment amid intense competition. You are correct to note that premium mass is currently the strongest segment. We will continue to focus on both premium mass and base mass, especially now that our full inventory is available.

And just as a follow-up, and this sort of alludes to a comment that Patrick made in the prepared remarks about expecting margin improvement as revenue grows. Just I think as we did our math, and this is high level so it could be off a little bit, but Macao OpEx we had up roughly 7% across the properties this quarter. And be kind of curious, is that like the right run rate, or are there things you can do to match cost to revenue? Again, maybe this was somewhat inflated by the reopening of Londoner, maybe the reopening of the arena at The Venetian; I'm not sure exactly. But it felt like it was a bit of a double issue for you.

Again, your observation is right. The main contributor is just the additional payroll costs that we incurred, both because of salary increases, but also additional head count as we opened up these new assets. But at the same time, obviously, we had a revenue decline in the non-rolling segment. We actually did well in the slot and also rolling. But the most important segment of revenue is the non-rolling tables, and we came down in that segment. So that's where you get that negative operating leverage. So hopefully, we should be seeing the reverse of that over time as we compete with the new assets and the existing properties for the customers and the revenues. And as revenues improve, we should see the positive operating leverage even with the payroll cost increase.

The next question will be from Brandt Montour from Barclays.

So curious, and I know you guys don't give guidance or a comprehensive forward look at the business, but there's been some commentary from the government from other sources that there's a pretty decent momentum into Golden Week in May. I'm just curious if April and/or the Golden Week bookings that you see feel better than normal or worse than normal. Or how would you kind of characterize what you're seeing out there?

I appreciate the question, but we don't talk about the current quarter. So why don't we move on to your next question?

Okay, fair enough. Sure. So next question would be on The Venetian. I'm curious, I understand we kind of talked about the Londoner a lot here and we kind of can see what's going on a little bit with the sequential share losses there because you didn't have the rooms, and so it's a tough environment for base mass. But what about The Venetian? Can you kind of walk us through maybe the monthly results in that property or how things evolved throughout the quarter? And if that was sort of affected at all by other things in the portfolio and optimization changes that you'd made?

I think it's straightforward, Brandt. I mean, Venetian, we just had too sharp a decline in non-rolling revenues, especially in the premium mass segment. And we're addressing that. Obviously, the whole percentage against both prior year and quarter-on-quarter was actually much lower as well. But nonetheless, we're focused on driving the customer and revenues across all segments at Venetian, premium mass and base mass. It's fair to say it's as well-patronized, as well-populated in terms of headcount as ever. In fact, we had quite significant growth in non-rolling table headcount during the quarter both over the prior year and sequentially. But clearly, the spend per headcount was lower. And so we do need to drive to secure higher-value customers in the premium mass segment to grow the revenues back at Venetian.

The next question is coming from Joe Stauff from Susquehanna.

Patrick, Rob, Grant. Two questions on MBS, please. I guess the first one, is there any way to assess, I guess, the level of consumer adoption, especially for the mass customer for prop bets? Naturally, kind of given the higher guidance that you have on VIP, that the adoption rate is higher, but I was just wondering how you guys think about it.

I think it's very difficult. Are you saying how can you handicap people's willingness to bet a certain way? I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

No. More like the, I guess, the frequency of a mass customer to bet on props versus that of VIP. Obviously, different bet sizes, but just the frequency between the two groups.

I don't think you can ever definitively say how people will choose to bet. However, I believe that lower-end customers are similar to lottery players; they tend to exhibit different behavior on prop bets compared to larger bettors, who generally prefer flat betting. This isn't always the case, as it can vary. Ultimately, predicting this is challenging, but we are observing a significant shift towards prop bets that I didn't expect. Consider the hold percentage; not long ago, it was 2.85%, and now, as Patrick noted, it's reached 3.7%, possibly even 4.1%. People are increasingly embracing these types of bets across all segments. I can't say how much further this trend will continue, but we now have the tools, including our new machinery and smart tables, to help analyze betting patterns. Determining people's betting preferences is quite complex, as some high-end players are heavily invested in prop bets while others favor flat betting. This variability has always existed in gambling scenarios. Although people sometimes react to the bets we offer, it's crucial for our business to present them in a way that encourages a broader array of betting. Flat betting doesn't significantly benefit our company's hold percentage or the industry as a whole. However, we're entering a transformative period in baccarat, which is incredibly promising. Just think about the impact of even a slight increase in hold percentage on our revenues and EBITDA. We're witnessing this evolution in Singapore, and I believe it will extend to Macao over time. While you can't precisely evaluate or predict these trends, enhancing the way we present these bets can help attract more interest. We're continuously exploring new games and developing engaging prop bets to enhance the overall customer experience, which is a key focus of our strategy to improve our hold percentage.

Could you provide an update on the renovations in Tower 3? Are you still on track to complete them around June? Also, what are the major remaining tasks that need to be finished?

So Tower 3 is done, but the key thing is there's some things we're going to be doing in the lobby on the SkyPark over the next 6 to 9 months. But as a lodging capacity, we're there.

The rooms. It's just not the public space, right?

Yes. The rooms are good. It's the public space that we're going to continue to do some work on throughout the year. But the rooms are there, and you're going to start seeing the benefit of those rooms in the upcoming quarters.

The next question will be from George Choi from Citigroup.

Now obviously, the introduction of the new side bets was done in Macao only in the middle of last year. I just wonder how popular are these new side bets in Macao thus far. And how does it compare to Singapore? Is there any chance that you could also raise the theoretical hold rate in less than two years' time?

George, actually, in terms of introducing new side wagers, we had one set of introduction in Q2 of last year and the other latest one in October last year. So progressively, you're seeing strong take-up of all of these new wagers. Obviously, Macao is somewhat behind Singapore as a market. Some of these wagers were introduced a lot earlier before Macao. So we're only beginning to see the adoption. But the adoption, I would say, is strong. But at this stage, yes, in Singapore, we do see a higher propensity to wager these side wagers. But Macao is growing. And over time, who knows. As Rob says, you can't predict the precise distribution. All we know is that the propensity is increasing.

I think with time, George, these two markets become very similar. I believe that long term, it will be very similar with the hold percentage. Before we know it.

Thanks for those kind words. Another question for me is on dividends. So we all appreciate the recent dividend resumption at Sands China. Should we expect the payout ratio to be maintained at around 50% level? And I guess, more importantly, should we expect an increase in the dividends of LVS as a result of Sands China dividend resumption?

So first off, in honor of Sheldon G. Adelson, I'd like to say, yay dividends; I think that's very important here, very applicable. I think the key thing here is we're very happy that the SCL Board determined to start paying a dividend again at the China level. And we hope to be able to grow that dividend over time as our CapEx rolls off there and as we generate more cash flow through revenue and EBITDA growth. So we're very excited about the opportunity to continue to return on capital at the SCL level and to grow that dividend into the future. I think at the LVS level, what you've seen us do in years past has really been very dividend-heavy. And I think what you're seeing now, if you sort of look at our return of capital, which is actually laid out on Page 33 of our book, you can kind of see that our ratio from share repurchase to dividends has been very weighted towards share repurchases. And if you sort of review our prior commentary on this call, you'll see that we're very focused on returning capital through share repurchase both at the LVS level and through the acquisition of further SCL shares. So while we don't necessarily target a specific dividend payout ratio, we do think where we are is healthy and sustainable for the long term for long-term dividend growth. And as SCL continues to grow its dividend over time as we hope, we'll have the ability to return more capital at the LVS level.

The next question will be from Colin Mansfield from CBRE.

Maybe the first one, can you give a little bit of color around what drove the decision to repay the parent loan from Sands China back to the parent? Just given we've talked about that in the past, it's pretty attractive cost of capital relative to where your current spreads are. So just kind of curious what influenced that decision. And how should we think about future ability to dividend cash out of Macao? Was that part of the decision too?

The decision was made at the SCL Board level. The general concept was that SCL is performing well and has growth opportunities, with a low leverage level. For SCL, it was just a matter of negative carry. It was accumulating cash, so it made sense to pay down some prepayable debt since it was no longer needed. SCL has access to the investment-grade credit market if there are opportunities for further borrowings. Given its revolving credit facility, current capital structure, leverage levels, and the cash it was generating, it made sense for SCL to pay back and eliminate some negative carry.

Patrick, maybe a second one for you, maybe just thinking about capital markets activity coming up with your upcoming refinancings both at the holdco level and also Sands China. You guys are a seasoned investment-grade issuer. How are you guys thinking about timing, potentially tapping the capital markets? Would you potentially lean on the revolver since you have capacity and liquidity there too? Just how you're thinking about that?

So I think you'll see us address the $500 million of LVS bonds in '25 in the near term. And I think we have an approach for that that we're very comfortable with. In regards to the SCL bonds, the $1.625 billion that comes due, we did actually, through the revolver refinancing there, we also initiated a term loan that we had the ability to draw on that amount. So if we choose to access the high-grade credit markets, we have that opportunity, or we may put it into the term loan, which is also very favorable and offers a lot of flexibility. So we have an approach to both those maturities in 2025.

The next question will be from Steve Wieczynski from Stifel.

So a bigger picture question that I'm not even sure you're going to have an answer for or not, but I'm going to ask it anyway. Rob, clearly, there's a lot of uncertainty around the political environment in both the U.S. and China. I think the fear that's out there is China might, at some point, retaliate against U.S. companies, or something along the lines. And that's where a lot of investors' heads are these days. So I guess the question is, is that something, Rob, that kind of keeps you awake at night? Or do you view your relationship with China in very, very good standing at this point, and that risk seems more low, if that makes sense?

First of all, I think we are not in Mainland China; we are in Macao SAR. I think there is a difference, number one. I do think Macao has a different orientation vis-a-vis Beijing. Secondly, to your point, I think we have an incredible relationship with Beijing and we've worked on it for many, many years, and it's very important to us. We're a big believer in the relationship between China and the U.S. We're very disheartened though about what's happening right now. Hopefully, we can get back on track. But it doesn't keep me up at night at all. In fact, I think we're in a very good position in Macao. We've been the leader in CapEx; we've been the leader in developing non-gaming assets. Sheldon has a legacy, which stands well. I don't believe this, right now, this dislocation in the countries is sustainable. There has to be a deal between the two most powerful countries in the world. I remain steadfast in my belief things come back to a much more normal rational place quickly. They have to. And I'm hoping that happens sooner than I anticipate. But no, it doesn't keep any of us up at night. We feel very committed to Macao and vice versa. It's been a very special relationship with this company. And it began 20-plus years ago when Sheldon first went there and made that pitch for Cotai. I think the Chinese have been incredible partners: the government in Macao, people in Beijing; we're grateful for their support over the years. And we continue to believe we'll be there for many years to come beyond the concession. And no, it doesn't keep me up at night at all. I would like to see a stronger relationship between the U.S. and China, like, tonight, because we all need it. Consumers need it. They need it. We need it. It's good for the world. And I'm very disheartened by what I'm seeing, but hopefully, that gets resolved quickly. But no, we're not concerned at all about our position in Macao, nor should we be.

There have been some reports indicating that the Singapore government plans to become more proactive in increasing visitation to the country in the future. This development should benefit MBS over time. Have you considered how this potential increase in visitation might impact your long-term EBITDA projections for MBS? Has this influenced your perspective on those projections in any way?

So first off, I think Singapore is an unbelievable market for high-value tourists, and Singapore has been very focused on creating opportunities for high-value tourism for many years and investing behind that thesis. And the Air Force, infrastructure, and other things that create attractions to help create prominence and desirability to visit Singapore. And so I think for us, it benefits us, but we're also investing with this thesis. So if you look at how we invest, the amenities that we're creating, the way we're positioning ourselves, the way other non-gaming operators are positioning their tourism offerings, it really is a special place. I think for us, it's very motivating, and we're very excited to continue to invest there and expand our offerings there. It's a rare place. Singapore is rarefied air. And it's very special; who goes to Singapore, the consumption habits. If you look at the retail consumption, beverage consumption, the gaming play, the lodging consumption, it's really unique. And I think it's driven because of the overall goal of the government of Singapore, which is to create the opportunity for high-value tourism. And so we've been benefiting from it for the last 15 years. And the Singapore government has been great in terms of investing in the assets that drive tourism, and we've been investing behind that.

I have to say though, as much as Singapore is a wonderful place, our asset is a wonderful asset within that place. And we've created our own very special place within the great state of Singapore. I think what we've done there is extraordinary. And it attracts those people because there's nothing like it in the region. There's nothing that special. It's very seductive; the rooms, the product, everything is amazing, and it has enhanced Singapore and vice versa. So going back to the vision of Singapore government is amazing, and our vision is pretty good too, what we've built over there.

The next question will be from Ben Chaiken from Mizuho.

First, in MBS, great margin results and strong mass performance. Just remind us, would you say that 1Q '25 had a difficult comparison year-over-year from the large concert in the prior year as well as the easing of the China visitation policy which I believe was also in the prior year? Or was this a pretty clean comparison year-over-year? Then one follow-up.

Well, first off, I think both quarters were awesome. So it's a tough comp. But as a practical matter, this was a totally normal quarter. So I would say that there wasn't anything extraordinary that happened in the quarter. This is pretty indicative of the performance of the business without any sort of anything that's out of the ordinary.

There wasn't a Taylor Swift there.

And I think the key thing here is we really have been able to put the entire asset to work, which is something we haven't been able to do for a while because of all the construction activity. So we're really getting close to being able to see this thing really get to the point where it's not experiencing any interruption due to development work. I think the key thing is this quarter was very normal. To your point, last year's quarter did have the Taylor Swift concert, did have a lot of other things going on that created very strong demand and very strong visitation. This quarter didn't, and so we're very fortunate that we had the results that we did. Credit to the team that did phenomenal work. As Rob just referenced, the building is in phenomenal shape. We think it's the best building in the world, and we're proud of what we've accomplished. But you can see the results from the activities there.

Yes, great result there. And then switching to Macao. Maybe just touching on the sequential market share in Macao again, fully recognizing that you had rooms out of service in 1Q, but also acknowledging that rooms out of service in 4Q as well. I guess is the interpretation just from some of the previous commentary that it's harder for you to leverage the current type of gameplay or player in Macao as it stands?

I think sequentially our room count moved up marginally. So we're about 8,900 both for Q4 and 9,100 or 9,200 in Q1. I think in terms of the Londoner Grand ramp-up, that was really a very soft ramp for Q1 because we didn't have all of the rooms. And therefore, it didn't make sense for us to operate as many gaming units in the Londoner Grand Casino for the first quarter. But from now on, from April, you'll see obviously us in full ramp-up mode. So I'm not sure that answers the question, but is there something else that you're asking that we haven't addressed?

No, that's fine. I appreciate it. Thank you.

And the final question today will be coming from David Katz from Jefferies.

I just want to go back to some of the earlier commentary and questions because I heard the word competition and competitive market in Macao quite a bit, having been there not all that long ago and heard a lot of the on-the-ground commentary about more of a benign promotional environment. Are you suggesting that we might start to see that change as part of the Londoner ramp-up? When you use the word competition, what do you mean by that?

We mean competition; people are fighting for various segments, and it's across the board. I'm not sure what you mean benign like that, David, because I don't see it as benign. There was a time when base mass was benign, and it fell in the door and no one gave anything. Those days are gone. So I think it is highly competitive. Again, our asset base is the best in class in scale and size. So I think we will do better. But I think it'd be foolish to think a non-growing market with a top line not expected we'd be competitive, and that reflects everyone's business, not just ours. So I'm not saying it's outsized, but there's really competition. There's competition.

I don't need to add to Rob's comment. The competition has always been very intense. We need to consider the competitive landscape and leverage our new assets, scale, and product offerings to enhance our efforts in generating revenue and attracting more customers. That's our focus. The market remains competitive, and I don't believe there's been any significant decline in that. However, we need to evaluate our position within this environment. With all the new rooms available, we are committed to intensifying our efforts to increase revenue.

Reduced liquidity, obviously, from 2019, reduced the top line results. So in any market where you shrink by $6 billion to $8 billion, $10 billion, you're going to see more competition for the existing dollars out there, and we're seeing that in Macao. I'm not saying we can't compete; we compete pretty well. But I think it'd be foolish not to recognize that base mass, premium mass, rolling, every segment in Macao is under pressure in terms of getting your fair share.

One observation is that the premium mass market seems to be getting more crowded. My question is whether you plan to become more promotional and how operators might be adjusting their competitive strategies.

I'm not sure. In terms of promotions, you have to consider different aspects. Firstly, we plan to aggressively utilize our new assets. That's our top priority. We have the largest scale for betting and slot machine products, and we need to leverage that as much as possible to enhance our competitive edge across all types of products and price ranges. Secondly, there will always be tactical promotions that we implement, as every operator does. We intend to be very active in engaging both existing and new customers and reactivating all customers with the full range of inventory we have available. We will push this hard because we aim to increase our customer base and revenue.

Thank you.

Thank you. This does conclude today's Q&A session, and it does conclude today's conference call. You may disconnect your phone lines at this time, and have a wonderful day. We thank you for your participation.