To: LLCF who wrote (1818 ) 4/21/2000 1:27:00 PM From: Richard Barron Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 2561
David, <a lot of people think they (TEE) milk the courses and would rather have a pro who can sell more merchandise than give lessons, etc. They are cheap with the maintenance also.> I agree that this isn't much of a business plan. I don't know how accurate this is. Many comments on bulletin boards are from people who have an additional agenda, but it still concerns me. There are some markets where you can't charge a higher playing fee without scaring players off. If so, then one has to skimp on expenses to survive. I don't know if this is true for 2-3% of their courses or 97% of the courses. It appears to me that the stock is priced as if worst case is a fact. I do know that they have been growing FFO per share very steadily since they came public. If the #'s are accurate, then the likelihood is that the public is content with the combination of fees and quality or else they could choose to use a different course. If I had enough time, and wanted to build a big position, I would love to try out a dozen of their courses and compare them to neighboring courses for quality and value. I do think the logistics for golf are very favorable with aging boomers for the next 5-10 years, if the speculators don't keep building so many new courses with the extravagant fees. The land gets more expensive each few years, especially if the course isn't out in the boondocks, which makes reasonably priced competition nearby very difficult. Of course, they do need to have the good locations and layouts. Richard p.s. One great thing about golf courses. After 20-30 years, there is a great chance that the land is worth more than the golf course operation and can be rezoned for residential or commercial providing a windfall. Again, the land had to be on the outskirts of a growing area, instead of 30 miles from a stagnant area.