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.
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..
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?
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.