Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Tall
Total distributions could have been greater then net-revenue.
Could have been. Probably weren't. So what?
Revenue = income, revenue =/= profit.
Net revenue = all income ever received - income given back. Hence perhaps net revenue approximates total rake collected - rakeback paid.
Profit = Net Revenue - expenses
Profit margin = Profit / Net Revenue
My WAG for profit margin is about 25%. It might have been much lower, but could not have been much higher.
Total distributions >= $440M
Profit = total distributions - current debt = approx $440M - $300M = $140M
Total revenue was probably on the order of $2B, maybe (much?) more, net revenue about maybe 2/3 total, or more. So total distributions were probably less than net revenue.
Assuming no return of capital, total distributions greater than net profit indicate improper distributions.
Given that profit < net revenue, total distributions > net revenue would indicate even larger improper distributions.
(Please note that in the above definitions and calculations, I have ignored things like retained earnings, fixed assets, depreciation, changes in capital, etc., and a bunch of other factors because they are not material to what we are talking about in the case of FTP. IOW don't take anything I said to your Accounting 101 exam.)