$50M to be specific....cant fathom how you can lose that much "Goin liable like michael" jackson (singing skills) jordan (gambling skills)
I don't get that. I understand how loan sharks work for your average degen, but obviously your average loan shark doesn't have $50M to lend out and I can't fathom the MGM running someone a $50M line of credit. But I'm also not an expert on massive lines of credit at casinos so what do I know.
He just has to put $50 million on black. And if it doesn't hit, then do it again with $100 million. Etc. duh
50m to one of the biggest male pop star in the last 10years is peanuts. Worst case scenario is that they have him in their debt and he does this For free and they make even more money off that 50 mill investment.
What is their risk? He keeps losing and he works for free for a year. It’s not like they are laying out cash when he loses.
I don’t think this adage is entirely applicable to casinos though. I’m not well versed on casino regulations or accounting practices but loaning an individual $50mm in cash is materially different than crediting them $50mm in “chips” to gamble within your casino. It’s not like they gave him $50.0mm cash and he walked down to the Bellagio. The phrase I’ve always used is “if you owe the bank $10,000 the bank owns you. If you owe the bank $10.0mm, you own the bank.” The casino still has all the leverage as the creditor even though Bruno is on the hook for an alleged $50.0mm. I don’t think MGM is sweating it, they’re actually probably delighted to have him in their debt. I'd imagine if MGM can’t recoup they just write it off as bad debt and get a break on their taxes? I don’t know though just thinking through it…please discuss.
no one wants to lose 50mm like that to save money on taxes. Usually you do that for a long term benefit, like spending in investing in future growth of a business.
my point is issuing credit as a casino isn’t the same as issuing credit as a traditional lender. Maybe I’m off base…but if you offer me a $100 bill or a $100 MGM chip you can probably guess which one I’m taking. In this scenario, MGM never really sent $50.0mm in cash out the door.
my guess is that MGM’s gambling arm and entertainment arm are not allowed to do this because they are probably technically separate companies for a whole lot of really good reasons
Your knowledge of who does and doesn’t want to lose $50mm has me asking questions not answered by your shirt
Yeah but it's not like they can make him work it off. Maybe can if he chooses, but it's not like the MGM can just decide he has to do discounted or free shows for them for years because he owes them money. That's aside from the problem of a guy working in a Vegas to pay off a debt he's in because of a gambling addiction.
Can’t find the tweet again but it said that he is so serious about cosplaying as a black dude in the 70s, he includes the coke addiction and gambling debts
Pretty sure the gaming side, which is heavily regulated, can’t just eat a $50M loss so the entertainment side can make “free money”. A good way to piss off a regulator is for the regulated businesses to take substantial losses that directly benefit the unregulated side.