No CNY Reunion Dinner for Stanley Ho?

Just one week left before the Rabbit Year CNY, local and international press are publishing the high-profile Stanley Ho's family feud. While we're busily shopping during this festive season, many people are chasing the "family drama", just like another popular Hong-Kong based production. Maybe, TVB's directors should consider converting the reality into a story-line drama/movie. I'm sure this could be a blockbuster-liked production.

Hong Kong and Macau tycoon Stanley Ho
SJM Holdings' most popular casino, Grand Lisboa
Obviously, fighting for money is very common nowadays especially for those wealthy families. To spice it up, the bigger the family was, the conflicts gets even greater.

Reportedly, Stanley Ho who has 4 branches of family and 17 children sure will intensified the degree of fighting.

Source: Wikipedia
Who is Stanley Ho?
  • Stanley Ho, also known as Ho Hung-sun, is an entrepreneur in Hong Kong and Macau. 
  • Nickname "King of Gambling", he get the government-granted Macau's gambling monopoly 40 years ago.
  • Hong Kong's 13th richest person with a net worth of USD 3.1 billion in 2010.
  • Businesses includes entertainment, tourism, shipping, real estate, banking and air transport.
Stanley Ho's prized asset, SJM Holdings Limited...
  • One of the casino operators in Macau.
  • Market Capitalization : HK$ 73.63 billion
Source: SJM Holdings Limited
Source: Bloomberg
Depending on the outcome of the wealth distribution saga, Stanley Ho's CNY celebration will be well-received by the most happily inherited family. I doubt the saga will end just before CNY for Stanley to enjoy his old-age celebration with at least one of his four families.

Good luck, Stanley.

Source: Bloomberg, SJM Holdings Limited, WSJ, Wikipedia

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"You Can Keep Your Existing Health Insurance"

I wondered about this statement at the time Obama made it.  Clearly, by changing all the rules of health care insurance and mandating conformity, it was unlikely that the vast majority of Americans would not find themselves forced by 'The Affordable Care Act' to have to deal with a completely different health insurance plan and completely different set of health care providers. I now understand what Obama meant.   He was speaking to his immediate family and (politician) friends.  They are exempt from the "Affordable Care Act."  Clearly what he meant to say was: "if you are exempt from Obamacare, like me and my family, you can keep your existing health insurance."  He never meant to mislead.
Read more

Work Ethic of 70s, 80s, 90s

Image
Different generations have their own view on working. You like it or not, working is part of our live. No work = No life. However, this equation has since changed to " Working = No life ". Do you agree? Generally, those born in 70s were perceived to be loving their job. They work hard mainly because of 3 meals/day. For them, a secured life means having a stable job with stable income. They believe that with every efforts you put in, that will reward you back later. As such, over time (OT) is nothing for them. As a responsible 70s, losing their job is a serious matter they tend to avoid. That's why they usually found another job first, before resigning. How about 80s? Other than chasing for stable income, those 80s working adults will also look into the job scope , opportunity for promotion , or working environment . They will take initiative to find for better job. Hence, job hopping is very common for them. Notably, 80s are reluctant to sacrifice their quality of life b
Read more

Things We Now Know

The poor are losing ground in the new Obama world.  The facts are showing up even in the halls of collectivist extremes like the New York Times.  The rich are getting richer and poor are being locked in place.  Big government is throttling the economy and the hopes and dreams of lower and middle class Americans. Today's Wall Street Journal's article by Simon Constable lays out some of the simple and obvious facts of the Obama era: "The richest 20% of households account for 38% of spending, according to government data for 2011, the latest available.  Compare that with 2003 when the top earners spent 26% of the total."  The article goes on to say..."it could get even worse."  It will. Who really benefits when the regulators strangle the banks?  Do banks really need to get much more conservative in their lending practices?  Why does the government know best?  How far can you stretch the FDIC guarantees before American banking is simply a subsidiary of the US g
Read more