Summary

Andrew Walker argues Golden Entertainment’s proposed sale-leaseback and management-led take-private could transfer roughly $300 million from minority shareholders to insiders. He is long $GDEN and wants a higher bid, but says the transaction’s headline premium largely comes from the real-estate sale-leaseback, while management acquires the remaining OpCo “for a song.”
The transaction gives shareholders approximately 0.9 VICI Properties shares worth $27.25 per Golden share, while valuing the operating business at only $2.75 per share. VICI also pays down roughly $425 million of Golden debt and receives the real estate beneath seven casinos; management then buys the remaining operating assets, including casinos and local taverns.
Walker’s valuation case starts with approximately $155 million of 2024 EBITDA and subtracts the newly imposed $87 million annual rent, leaving roughly $70 million of OpCo EBITDA. Applying EverBay Capital’s “modest” 5.5× multiple produces about $376 million, or nearly $14 per share, versus management’s approximately $75 million purchase price. His categorical conclusion is that there is no world in which this OpCo is worth 1× EBITDA.
The alleged “smoking gun” is Golden’s removal of presentations and conference-call links from its investor-relations website immediately after the deal announcement. Those materials had repeatedly argued that a sale-leaseback could cover Golden’s entire stock-market value and effectively create the OpCo for free; management reinforced that message by repurchasing shares around or below $30 despite insiders already owning more than 25%.
Walker believes a go-shop alone is insufficient because management controls forecasts, bidder access and communications with gaming regulators. A credible process must let bidders purchase the OpCo while inheriting the VICI agreement, assure equal treatment and allow management to roll its equity—or not—at the bidder’s preference.
His preferred remedy is to separate the shareholder votes on the sale-leaseback and the OpCo take-private. Investors could accept the VICI transaction while retaining a no-net-debt public company producing perhaps $50 million-$70 million of EBITDA; that stub could remain public, be sold competitively or potentially relever and distribute roughly $5 per share.
Minority shareholders should communicate that they will reject the transaction unless the OpCo price rises or the structure changes, Walker says. His bottom line is categorical despite acknowledging that EBITDA and multiple assumptions can vary: the sale-leaseback is legitimate financial engineering, but a roughly one-times-EBITDA insider acquisition is an “absolutely insane price.”

Deep dive

1. The headline premium conceals the transaction Walker wants exposed

Walker frames the solo episode as an exercise in shareholder governance: “sunshine is the best disinfectant.” He is long $GDEN, explicitly wants a higher bid and describes the proposed transaction as a fully legal—but, in his view, deeply unfair—transfer from outside shareholders to management.
His governing analogy is the roughly $100 million Louvre jewel theft: spectacular enough to dominate headlines, yet only one-third of the alleged $300 million Golden transfer. The comparison is deliberately provocative, but his substantive claim is narrower: investors must separate the real-estate proceeds from what insiders are paying for the operating company.

2. Golden’s disappearing investor materials become the “smoking gun”

Golden’s investor-relations site displayed seven content boxes as recently as Thursday, November 6, Walker says, consistent with an April 15, 2025 Wayback Machine capture. By Friday, the presentations and conference-calls boxes had disappeared, leaving five; he interprets the timing as powerful circumstantial evidence, not direct proof.
Those missing materials mattered because Golden had spent roughly 18 months explaining why its Nevada assets were attractive and how a sale-leaseback could create value. One cited presentation said the real estate could support the entire share price, effectively leaving investors with the OpCo for free.
Management’s capital allocation reinforced its words: Golden repeatedly repurchased stock around or below $30 per share while the insiders now pursuing the take-private owned more than 25%. Walker’s inference is that they believed the public shares were undervalued before proposing to acquire the OpCo at $2.75 per share.

3. The two-part structure gives management the OpCo at one-times EBITDA

VICI Properties would acquire the real estate beneath seven Golden casinos, pay down approximately $425 million of Golden debt and distribute roughly 0.9 VICI shares per Golden share, then worth about $27.25. The annual rent—disclosed in VICI’s release rather than Golden’s—is $87 million.
Management would acquire the remaining casinos, taverns and operating assets for $2.75 per share, producing the advertised total consideration of roughly $30. Walker’s objection is not to the sale-leaseback, which he calls “a nifty piece of financial engineering,” but to attaching the insider take-private at that valuation.
Golden generated approximately $155 million of EBITDA in 2024, or nearer $145 million on a softer trailing basis. Using the 2024 figure and subtracting $87 million of rent leaves roughly $70 million of post-lease OpCo EBITDA.
EverBay Capital—which Walker says he does not know or communicate with—published a letter about 15 minutes after the announcement advocating a sale-leaseback; the letter did not mention the announced deal. It estimated $50 million of OpCo EBITDA and called 5.5× a “modest” multiple. Walker applies that multiple to his roughly $70 million estimate to reach about $376 million, just under $14 per share, compared with management’s approximately $75 million purchase price.

4. Reasonable valuation debate does not rescue a $75 million price

Walker invites investors to substitute $50 million or $60 million for his $70 million EBITDA estimate and to debate whether the right multiple is 4×, 6× or 8×. His categorical boundary remains: “There’s not a world where this OpCo is worth $2.75 per share.”
The leverage capacity sharpens his argument. He says an OpCo like this could support roughly 2.5×-3× leverage, while illustrating a dividend recapitalization using 2×-2.5× leverage. Management might value the OpCo at $75 million, pay roughly $50 million to minority holders because it already owns about 25%, extract a $150 million dividend and, using his arithmetic, retain $75 million in cash plus control of the OpCo.
That possibility turns a low headline multiple into immediate economics. Hence the phrase “wealth transfer of the highest order,” rather than merely an opportunistic acquisition.

5. Walker’s remedies include a portable go-shop and separate votes

Walker accepts a go-shop only if it is “fully fair and transparent.” Management controls projections, responsiveness and bidder communications; gaming regulation adds another conflict because management could potentially discourage regulators from welcoming an unfriendly buyer.
Any bidder must therefore be allowed to bid solely for the OpCo and inherit the VICI agreement. Management should also commit to equal treatment and offer to roll its equity—or decline to roll it—according to the competing bidder’s preferred structure.
Even if the go-shop produces nothing, Walker says the OpCo price still needs to rise. More importantly, shareholders should vote separately on the VICI sale-leaseback and management take-private rather than face a binary choice between the bundled $30 package and no transaction.
His alternative is a no-net-debt public stub earning perhaps $50 million-$70 million annually. It could remain listed, pursue another buyer or relever and potentially pay shareholders roughly a $5-per-share dividend—the same financial options management says it could pursue privately.
Walker closes by urging holders to run their own numbers, contact Golden and warn that they will vote against the deal and hold the board accountable. He says he is not trying to form a shareholder group and is speaking from his own long position. He believes a restructured transaction could still let management take the company private while delivering “much more and much fairer value” to minority owners.

My Positive Vision for the AI Future, from the Existential Hope Podcast Eric Schmidt on the US–China AI Race and Avoiding a Global Crisis