I read it that he lost a significant part if his cash assets. Revenue is a different concept. In your calculation you made the comparison with revenue.
I compared the size of the two numbers I was given. I didn’t call them equivalent, I didn’t say they described the same thing. I only even used the word revenue after you did, because I was using zero context to compare the numbers (I just like numbers and it popped out to me that it was 10%)- it wasn’t until you said revenue that it occurred to me that he probably would have reinvested much of that money and it wasn’t just profit.
That said, now that I am thinking about it, he didn’t exactly have access to non cash investment or value storage options. I wonder if there was much of a difference between the total money coming in and the total cash coming in.
Yes I know, you divided number one with number two and did the math right. I’m just saying that in the general world of business metrics comparing those numbers is not really a common practice.
Edit. For comparison, you might have a car that loses 5k of its value in a year and you work and get paid 50k a year. Surely that 5k depreciation is 10% of your yearly income, but typically you count that per cent from the value of the car instead.
But he lost 2.1B every year, so for every 52 week period
Yes, but losing 10% of an asset typically refers to total asset value, not revenue.
We’re not even including losses on the cocaine itself, this is all just about the revenue. He didn’t lose 10% of his business every year.
I read it that he lost a significant part if his cash assets. Revenue is a different concept. In your calculation you made the comparison with revenue.
I compared the size of the two numbers I was given. I didn’t call them equivalent, I didn’t say they described the same thing. I only even used the word revenue after you did, because I was using zero context to compare the numbers (I just like numbers and it popped out to me that it was 10%)- it wasn’t until you said revenue that it occurred to me that he probably would have reinvested much of that money and it wasn’t just profit.
That said, now that I am thinking about it, he didn’t exactly have access to non cash investment or value storage options. I wonder if there was much of a difference between the total money coming in and the total cash coming in.
Yes I know, you divided number one with number two and did the math right. I’m just saying that in the general world of business metrics comparing those numbers is not really a common practice.
Edit. For comparison, you might have a car that loses 5k of its value in a year and you work and get paid 50k a year. Surely that 5k depreciation is 10% of your yearly income, but typically you count that per cent from the value of the car instead.