Wynn thinks his Vegas operations have finally hit the bottom

Wynn 3rd Qtr Results


Revenue at Wynn Resorts’ Las Vegas operations, which includes Wynn and Encore Las Vegas on the Strip, totaled $334.5 million, 3.1 percent higher than the third quarter of 2009. EBITDA at the properties was up 9.3 percent to $76.5 million, primarily due to higher non-gaming revenue.

“This is the first time I’m going to say in a conference call that I believe we’ve hit bottom in Las Vegas,” Wynn said. “I don’t know how fast it’s going to get better, but I don’t think it’s going to get any worse.”

I don't understand that kind of accounting. The "income loss" was generated, per the article, by paying down debt. So a liability (the debt) was offset by a reduction in available cash. This would have produced no net change in the balance sheet: assets and liabilities would have been reduced by an equal amount. The paying down of debt thus should have not been figured in the calculation of INCOME.

Gross income is revenues; net income is revenues-expenses. Neither one belongs on the balance sheet--that's where assets and liabilities go. Paying down a debt is liquidating an asset to reduce a liability. Misstating that transaction as having an effect on INCOME is like selling a hotel for $200 million and then saying that that $200 million was income---which it would not be, it would be trading the asset, "hotel", for the asset, "cash". From an accounting standpoint, the balance sheet would stay the same.

I should apply for a job at Wynn if his accountants make basic mistakes like that.

If you knew as much as you purport to know on just about every topic that comes up, you wouldn't be a teacher. You'd be a teenager.

Quote: mkl654321

I don't understand that kind of accounting. The "income loss" was generated, per the article, by paying down debt. So a liability (the debt) was offset by a reduction in available cash. This would have produced no net change in the balance sheet: assets and liabilities would have been reduced by an equal amount. The paying down of debt thus should have not been figured in the calculation of INCOME.

Gross income is revenues; net income is revenues-expenses. Neither one belongs on the balance sheet--that's where assets and liabilities go. Paying down a debt is liquidating an asset to reduce a liability. Misstating that transaction as having an effect on INCOME is like selling a hotel for $200 million and then saying that that $200 million was income---which it would not be, it would be trading the asset, "hotel", for the asset, "cash". From an accounting standpoint, the balance sheet would stay the same.

I should apply for a job at Wynn if his accountants make basic mistakes like that.

I have talked to business reporters a number of times, and discussed the huge discrepancies in the way things are reported. Wynn probably didn't pay his investor's anything on their shares this quarter in order to improve his long term corporate position,

Quote: JerryLogan

If you knew as much as you purport to know on just about every topic that comes up, you wouldn't be a teacher. You'd be a teenager.

I was a professional accountant for ten years. Do you know jack shit about accounting? Can you prove that anything in my post was incorrect? Have you ever SEEN a set of corporate financial statements?

I thought not. So you're just talking out of your ass, yet again. You're beginning to embarrass yourself. God, how I pity your wife--she has to put up with you ALL THE TIME. Talk about a living hell!

Quote: mkl654321

God, how I pity your wife--she has to put up with you ALL THE TIME. Talk about a living hell!

Just like your 'life partner' has to put up with you..

Quote: EvenBob

Just like your 'life partner' has to put up with you..

We have reached new lows.......

I think he's right about Vegas "hitting bottom" - the economy is slowly recovering, so I think up is the only way from here. Of course, I think it's been like that for the past few months, or maybe even more.

Quote:

Although Wynn did not present hard financial numbers on the Cotai project during the conference call, he said he expects the property to cost about $2.5 billion.

Two point five billion? Daaaaang. I hope the Macau market isn't getting over saturated with these enormous casinos. I mean, there has to be a point, right?

Quote: ElectricDreams

Two point five billion? Daaaaang. I hope the Macau market isn't getting over saturated with these enormous casinos. I mean, there has to be a point, right?

The most amazing thing about Macau is the potential that is still untapped. Macau is entertaining just over 20 million visitors (a little more than half of Las Vegas visitors), and they have 4 times as much gaming revenue. But 20 million is still a small fraction of a population of over 1.33 billion. With the new network of high speed trains opening up in less than 2 years, visitation numbers could soar by multiples.

Wynn Macau reported a 49% increase in revenue in the 3rd quarter of 2009.

Wynn Operating income (loss) for the first 9 months of 2010
$(67,902,000) Las Vegas (loss)
$389,927,000 Macau
$72,918,000 Corporate

You also forget that the US government is pushing China to increase the value their currency by 20% to 30% relative to the dollar. If that doesn't affect gambling revenue then that will result in an immediate increase in revenue by that much in dollars.

I have been saying that other capital cities will try and copy the stunning success of the casinos in Singapore. Instead of creating a gambling culture that saturates the urban landscape, cities will be tempted to open a single world class casino that will only appeal to the world travelling elite. None of the headaches of street people, and all of the glamor and money. Within ten years the Chinese will be the dominant source of international tourists as massive numbers of them want to retire.

I can see Canary Wharf in London as a logical location for such a casino.

Quote: pacomartin

You also forget that the US government is pushing China to increase the value their currency by 20% to 30% relative to the dollar. If that doesn't affect gambling revenue then that will result in an immediate increase in revenue by that much in dollars.

Very unlikely. Remember last year, when Obama visited China to beg them for currency reform, and the Premier lifted his leg and peed on him? China's grand strategy is and has been to destroy world markets and eliminate competirors by selling its goods at a loss. They are also completely ignoring environmental considerations, fouling their own nest is an effort to outproduce the rest of the world, even if that means a couple of hundred million extra deaths.

It's kind of nice to see American-owned casinos repatriating some of that money we're sending to China. Maybe we can pay off that couple of trillion we owe them in room comps. (And if you think it would take a LOT of room comps to eliminate 2 trillion $$$, you haven't priced the rooms at a Wynn property lately.)