← Back to Feed

Barry Diller Wants MGM at $48.30 a Share. That's a 2.3% Premium. Read That Again.

The largest single shareholder in MGM Resorts is offering to take the whole company private at barely above market price, and a law firm just started asking whether that's fair to everyone else holding the stock. If you've ever watched a controlling investor set the terms of their own deal, you already know how this story tends to end.

Barry Diller Wants MGM at $48.30 a Share. That's a 2.3% Premium. Read That Again.
Available Analysis

I sat on the ownership side of a take-private conversation once. Different industry, same structure. The majority holder came to the table with a price that was technically above the trading range and called it a "premium." One of the minority investors leaned back in his chair and said, "That's not a premium. That's a tip." The room went very quiet.

That's what I think about when I look at Barry Diller's $48.30 per share bid for MGM Resorts. People Inc. (what used to be IAC before the rebrand) already controls 26.1% of the company. Diller sits on the board. And his offer to buy out everybody else comes in at a 2.3% premium over where the stock was trading when the bid dropped on June 1st. Two point three percent. On a company that operates some of the most iconic casino resort properties in the world. The implied enterprise value is roughly $18 billion including debt... call it around $12.4 billion for the shares he doesn't already own. Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, a securities law firm, has now opened an investigation into whether this structure violates fiduciary duties under Delaware law.

Here's where it gets interesting for our world. This isn't just a Wall Street story. MGM Resorts runs hotels. Tens of thousands of rooms. Convention properties. Destination resorts. If this goes through at $48.30... or anything close to it... what you're really looking at is a change of control event at one of the largest hospitality operators on the planet, executed by a media and technology executive whose stated thesis is that MGM's physical and digital assets are "materially undervalued." Think about what that means. He's telling the public markets that MGM is worth more than they think... and simultaneously offering to buy it at barely more than the market price. Both things can't be true. If MGM is genuinely undervalued, then $48.30 is a steal. If it's fairly valued, then Diller's rationale for the deal evaporates. Pick one.

And this is happening weeks after Tilman Fertitta's $17.6 billion agreement to acquire Caesars. Two of the biggest gaming and hospitality operators in the country, both potentially going private in the same quarter. If you're a GM running a property that competes with MGM or Caesars in any market... Las Vegas, Atlantic City, the regionals... pay attention to what happens next. Private ownership changes everything about how these companies invest, operate, and make decisions. Public companies answer to quarterly earnings calls. Private ones answer to whoever wrote the check. Sometimes that means more patient capital and longer-term thinking. Sometimes it means the opposite... aggressive cost reduction to service the debt that funded the acquisition. Which one you get depends entirely on who's buying and why.

The law firm investigation is the sideshow everyone's watching, but the real question is simpler and more uncomfortable. When the guy who controls a quarter of your company, sits on your board, and has access to every internal data point decides he wants to buy the rest... can any price he offers really be called "arm's length"? Diller recused himself from board deliberations on the offer. Fine. But the information asymmetry doesn't disappear because someone steps out of the room. He's been an insider for years. He knows what the loyalty program is worth. He knows the development pipeline. He knows where the digital business is headed. The minority shareholders looking at their brokerage accounts right now don't know any of that. They just see a number that's 2.3% above where it was trading and have to decide if that's enough. I've seen this movie before. The controlling interest usually gets what they want. The question is always at whose expense.

Operator's Take

If you're running a property that competes with MGM in any market... or if you're under a management company that also operates MGM assets... here's what to do right now. Pull your comp set data and start thinking about what happens to competitive positioning if MGM goes private and the new ownership either accelerates or decelerates capital investment at their properties. Don't wait for it to happen. Model both scenarios. A newly private MGM that pours money into renovations changes your competitive landscape in 18 months. A newly private MGM that cuts to service acquisition debt changes it in 6 months. Either way, you should be the one walking into your owner's office with a plan for both outcomes, not reacting to a headline three months from now. And for anyone holding MGM stock in a personal account or through your company's investment portfolio... talk to someone who understands Delaware fiduciary law before you tender anything at 2.3% above market.

Source: Google News: MGM Resorts
📊 Asset valuation in hospitality 📊 Fiduciary duties and minority shareholder protection 🏢 People Inc. 👤 Barry Diller 📊 Change of control in hospitality 🏢 MGM Resorts International 👤 Tilman Fertitta
The views, analysis, and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of InnBrief. InnBrief provides hospitality industry intelligence and commentary for informational purposes only. Readers should conduct their own due diligence before making business decisions based on any content published here.