Solvency of Cruise Lines

[Travelcat2]

1 hour ago, 1982CruzStart said:

I don't think allowing an opt out option is at all like 'Canadian dollar at par'. I would say the 'Canadian dollar at par' equates more closely to the discounts offered in the UK and Europe. 

As the number of US customers far surpasses the number of Canadian cruisers the impact on Regent's bottom line could be far greater by the large number of loyal US customers wanting to opt out than the few Canadians taking advantage of the 'at par' cruises offered.  We have never taken an 'at par' cruise but i have looked at them. They are the cruises that are the least popular and Regent is trying to sell them off without breaking their no US discounting policy. 

I don't know how Regent not honoring their onboard price guarantee has anything to do with 'at par' cruises.  The one time we had a price guarantee opportunity, Regent honored ours. Sorry if that didn't happen for you but not sure why that has anything to do with my comments on opting out.

If fact i said i understood why people might want to opt out, i just didn't think Regent would go for it because of the potential negatvie impact by the large number of repeat  US cruisers that might want to take advantage of an opt out. 

 

Just to insure that I'm understanding your point, you feel that a large number of repeat customers could take advantage of the opt out.  I felt that the number would be around 10-15% of the passengers.  Obviously, I could be wrong since a poll has not been done on this topic (and even it it was done, non-Regent cruisers would likely vote in the poll as they typically do and this would skew the results).  

 

In terms of how to implement this, if Regent was interested in making this change, we usually have some IT people out there to get their input on this issue.  I suspect that I am over-simplifying the issue while others are making it overly complicated.  The answer is likely in between.  While I have not worked in IT, the companies that I worked for were in that business and I was often amazed at how quickly and accurately they could change a program (and I'm certain that things have come a long way since I left the industry).  

 

Marc - you are correct - there are two subjects being discussed at the same time.  The excursion discussion is a possible way to fill Regent ships without negatively affecting Regent's bottom line.  Perhaps there should be a discussion as to what would be acceptable to Regent passengers in terms of cutting back to save money.  Would it be food, service (less crew members), amenities within the suites such as shampoos, included hotels (not always offered by Regent) or ?  It would be interesting to learn what current Regent cruisers are thinking.  Note:  I mention "current" Regent cruisers only because food offerings and amenities have changed within the last 3 years so it is likely that some posters are not aware of what is on the ships and/or how they work/taste, etc.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

This question just came to mind--what does Regent do with the deposit moneys that they receive?  Does it go into some kind of escrow?  Or do they just use it as part of their cash flow?  Anybody know?

[SusieQft]

If Regent allowed those who do not take excursions to opt out, they would not decrease their cost, since those passengers do not take excursions anyway.  (I know, dividing passengers into those who do excursions and those who don't is a bit simplistic, but I am doing it for the sake of simplification.)  Since the per passenger revenue would go down, the only way this could be cost effective for Regent would be to increase the total number of passengers. 

 

Obviously, this would not make sense for Regent if the ships are sailing full.  There might be a dip in occupancy once they start sailing again, but I suspect it will be very temporary.  All those FCCs floating around out there have to be used within a short time period, and that alone will help to ensure that the 2021 and 2022 sailings are relatively full.

 

The other logical disconnect in the pro-opt out argument is that it seems to me that those wanting the opt out are mostly long time Regent sailors who have been there, done that, and still want to sail Regent anyway.  And are for the most part, sailing Regent anyway.  I don't think I have seen anyone post that they personally would sail more often if given this choice.  I was not reading the board back when people were saying they would leave Regent because of this, and if they left they may very well have found compatible cruise lines elsewhere.  If so, giving the opt out option now may not get them back, anyway.  How many were sitting at home waiting for Regent to lower the prices, before we all had to sit at home anyway?

 

Part of the loyalty to any given cruise line is familiarity, relationships with the crew, and the reward program.  By now the people who may have left Regent over this issue have probably developed all of those things on other lines.  IMO, whatever number of past cruisers who would be brought back to Regent would be minimal compared to new customers who might not be drawn to Regent for the included excursions.

 

Before you say this yet again, I will do it for you: 

 

4 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

It is unfortunate that I am being misquoted repeatedly about the excursion issue.  I have absolutely not made any comment about removing or stopping included excursions.

 

It is nonetheless true that an opt out would put a "price" on the included excursions and would factor into the decision making for all people considering Regent, both new as well as returning passengers.  They would become an optional add-on instead of being included.  This is also true of the air and hotel, regardless of how Regent words it in its marketing.

[rallydave]

1 hour ago, Wendy The Wanderer said:

This question just came to mind--what does Regent do with the deposit moneys that they receive?  Does it go into some kind of escrow?  Or do they just use it as part of their cash flow?  Anybody know?

Wendy, really doubt anyone outside of Regent could answer your question with any certainty since this type of information is kept close to the vest by all companies.

 

That said, would not think very many, if any would keep deposits in any type of escrow account especially cruise lines who would not have those dollars for use for several years.  And, if they did keep mneey in escrow, there would be no reason for not promptly refunding that portion of the fare immediately rather than 60 to 90 days since it could not be used for anything else if escrowed.  Hope this helps but, please don't quote me on this; just an educated guess.

[Wendy The Wanderer]

Yeah, just speculating.

[Dolebludger]

Yes, and this is the exact reason why we will not put up a deposit on any cruise until this pandemic is totally over. If I understand correctly (and I'm not sure I do)  Regent will refund all moneys I have paid for a cruise LESS the deposit should it be forced to cancel my booked cruise due to continuation of the pandemic. We feel that these deposits charged by Regent are not "beer money" but are substantial sums. Even if the virus abates so that Regent can begin cruising in late July as per government order  (which is far from certain), medical experts say there is a strong possibility of a return of the virus in the fall, which could result in additional bans on cruise ship operations. Even if I booked a cruise for the winter or the next spring, my deposit money would be lost if Regent canceled the cruise for any reason -- including government order. If this is the case, this is not acceptable. 

[JMARINER]

1 hour ago, Wendy The Wanderer said:

This question just came to mind--what does Regent do with the deposit moneys that they receive?  Does it go into some kind of escrow?  Or do they just use it as part of their cash flow?  Anybody know?

The money that Cruise lines collect is not in an escrow. Escrow accounts are used when there is a 3rd party holding the money to guarantee performance. The escrow holder has a fiduciary relationship with the parties and both parties have to agree beforehand to the escrow. The monies are not release to the seller until the terms of the escrow are satisfied. (Note that in some States, Travel Agent who directly collect monies and put the money in their account to be paid to the vendors later, act as fiduciaries.) The point is, that if the money was in an Escrow account, you would know about it.

In the past many cruise lines have gone bankrupt and the passengers lost their money.  Unless one has insurance that would include the risk of bankruptcy, your mostly out of luck and have to settle for pennies on the dollar, if anything at all. Other Countries, (non USA) have different rules and protections.

 

J

[rallydave]

1 minute ago, Dolebludger said:

Yes, and this is the exact reason why we will not put up a deposit on any cruise until this pandemic is totally over. If I understand correctly (and I'm not sure I do)  Regent will refund all moneys I have paid for a cruise LESS the deposit should it be forced to cancel my booked cruise due to continuation of the pandemic. We feel that these deposits charged by Regent are not "beer money" but are substantial sums. Even if the virus abates so that Regent can begin cruising in late July as per government order  (which is far from certain), medical experts say there is a strong possibility of a return of the virus in the fall, which could result in additional bans on cruise ship operations. Even if I booked a cruise for the winter or the next spring, my deposit money would be lost if Regent canceled the cruise for any reason -- including government order. If this is the case, this is not acceptable. 

Believe you are a little confused..  There is an issue with your depisit and that is that you cannot use your FCC from you canceling or Regent cancelling for a deposit on a new cruise.  As far as I've heard if they refund your money because they cancelled the cruise you get back 100% and if you cancel first you get an FCC and not a refund.  The only possible non refundable deposit might be the $200 administrative fee when canceling before penalties kick in and that is usable on future cruises so I'm confused by your understanding

[Dolebludger]

rallydave,

 

I did say in my post above that my understanding might not be correct -- and it appears it wasn't. 

[Steve Q]

10 hours ago, pappy1022 said:

Recent information from Barron's on cruise industry. 

 

The Big Three

With the coronavirus crisis keeping the cruise industry from sailing at least through mid-July, analysts have been trying to assess how much cash the three largest U.S. cruise operators are burning through each month and their remaining liquidity.

 

Company / Ticker	Estimated Monthly Cash Burn With No Revenue (mil)	Estimated Months of Liquidity
Carnival / CCL	$834	9
Royal Caribbean Cruises / RCL	441	7
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings / NCLH	251	5

Note: these estimates assume that cruise operators can defer at least half of their payments on export credit loans that finance new ships.

 

Given the uncertain length of revenue disruption, investors have bailed out and shares of the big three cruise stocks have tumbled this year.

 

Company / Ticker	2018 Global Passenger Market Share	YTD stock Performance	Ship Deliveries *
Carnival / CCL	47.40%	-76.10%	5
Royal Caribbean Cruises / RCL	23	-72.4	4
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings / NCLH	9.5	-80.4	1

*Initially scheduled for this fiscal year. Note: performance as of 4/23/20.

 

But intrepid investors might take heart that the industry has shown resilience during prior times of duress in recent years.

 

Time Frame	Historical Context	Price Decline Duration
2000 – 2003	2001 Recession / 9/11 Terror Attack / Iraq War / SARS	3 Years
2008 - 2009	2008 - 09 Recession	12-14 Months
January 2012	Costa Concordia Disaster*	10 Months

Just read the article referenced in Baron’s. The writer is a regular staff writer who has always seemed credible to me. Unfortunately, he does not paint a very optimistic picture absent some new capital. In addition, no one has any idea when sailings will resume. If there is once again a serious return of the virus in the fall and winter months, I can only presume that the cruise lines will be forced to curtail sailings.

I mentioned in a previous post that our first Regent cruise on May 22 was cancelled yesterday. After a great deal of thought, we have requested a refund through our travel agent. Others may choose the cruise credit option, but we just did not feel comfortable with that.

[Travelcat2]

SusieQFT - It is not necessarily true that those of us that want to opt out of excursions do not take excursions anyway.  We take some excursions simply because we paid for it (and sometimes, due to really poor excursions, we tip the tour guide and bus driver  - let them know that we are going to do our own thing and leave the tour).  Also, in some locations (such as the Middle East and Africa), we would not opt out of excursions.  IMHO, some of the best included excursions are in these two areas (and some of the worst, in our opinion, have been in South America).  

 

For a long time I was monitoring other luxury cruise lines boards (except for Crystal) and posters have stated that they would return to Regent IF they did not have to pay for excursions.  

 

By the way, I was not suggesting that Regent do away with hotels, etc.  I was curious what cut-backs (if any) would be acceptable to Regent cruisers.  Hotels are already not included in lower categories (they used to be included in all categories).  More and more people are opting out of the pre-night hotel because we get around a $300 credit and have found hotels in some cities to cost less than the credit.  Before we were eligible for private transfers, we could book a hotel and pay a taxi for the same $300 and not have to deal with the hoards of people at the hotels where Regent passengers stay (and the nightmare of waiting for a bus to take us to the ship).  

 

While we love Regent, it took us a while to learn what to avoid and what to go for.  Hope that you eventually are able to cruise on Regent and you will be able to experience these things ...... the great and the not so great.

[SusieQft]

I also did not say anything about doing away with hotels (or air), only that they are optional add-ons.  The difference between that description and marketing them as "included" is purely semantics, nothing else.  There is one price with them, and a lower price without them.

[Travelcat2]

9 minutes ago, SusieQft said:

I also did not say anything about doing away with hotels (or air), only that they are optional add-ons.  The difference between that description and marketing them as "included" is purely semantics, nothing else.  There is one price with them, and a lower price without them.

 

Exactly!!!! This is why people opting out will save passengers and Regent money.  Yes - Regent likely receives a discount on excursions and a certain number of people must be guaranteed but most included excursions fill up quickly and need 4-8 buses to accommodate everyone.  Regent likely would still receive a discount if they only used 4 buses.  And, wouldn't the same thing apply to hotels?  They need to guarantee a certain number of rooms.  Even with so many of us opting out of hotels, Regent still fills the hotels and many times has to use additional hotels to accommodate their passengers.  

 

I'm not mentioning air because most of us use included (or custom) air.  This is a huge plus for Regent - they have contracts with some wonderful airlines (Emirates - in some areas, Cathay Pacific, Lufthansa, British Airways, etc.).  Only people with "miles" or that want to fly First Class tend to opt out of air.  During this critical time, IMHO, it would not be wise to opt out of air.  If there were an emergency, Regent finds flights for passengers that have booked air through them before assisting passengers that booked their own air.

 

 

[rallydave]

30 minutes ago, Travelcat2 said:

Exactly!!!! This is why people opting out will save passengers and Regent money.  Yes - Regent likely receives a discount on excursions and a certain number of people must be guaranteed but most included excursions fill up quickly and need 4-8 buses to accommodate everyone.  Regent likely would still receive a discount if they only used 4 buses.  And, wouldn't the same thing apply to hotels?  They need to guarantee a certain number of rooms.  Even with so many of us opting out of hotels, Regent still fills the hotels and many times has to use additional hotels to accommodate their passengers.

It is profit that Regent will lose by going to option out of excursions; nothing to do with saving or not saving money and nothing to do with anything in the post  quoted,

 

Have described the reasons for the loss of profit under this scenario in detail several times in the last few days and either you didn't read those posts or perhaps didn't understand the math of this issue as you have stated that math is not your strong point.

 

It is absolutely 100% true that allowing people to opt out of included excursions will reduce Regent' profits and in certain cases which I already explained the passenger could also spend more money in total even by opting out and taking and paying for some of the Regent excursions.  This is why you need to drop this line of posting.

 

And it is not about saving money for Regent, it is about the most important thing for all companies   PROFIT.  which Regent will definitely lose under this idea.  Yes, in some cases passengers will save money but, there are cases where the total cruise will cost more.

Edited April 26, 2020 by rallydave

[BarbarianPaul]

On 4/24/2020 at 11:02 AM, Travelcat2 said:

 

Based on my discussions with Regent, you are likely correct.  However, keep in mind (and I am sorry that I keep repeating myself but some posters do not read previous posts), that I am not trying to stop included excursions - only wish to give an opt out option.  There are people that have left Regent and gone to other luxury lines due to included excursions being included in the fare. After all, we are all paying for those "included" excursions.  Some of you may not have been on CC when included excursions was implemented.  It was quite an uproar by cruisers that have been to most of the ports repeatedly and did not want to pay for an excursions that they did not want.

 

Perhaps Regent will weigh their options when trying to get people to book cruises in the future.  It is a way of allowing some passengers to pay a little less money for their cruise fare..... having some passengers return that left Regent while keeping their "draw" for new passengers.  There is no doubt that included excursions draw new people to Regent.  However, it is also important to keep their long time customer base.  

 

 

We agree! My wife and I have been on Regent exactly once,  and were initially thrilled that excursions were included for all the reasons being expressed here.
 

And then we actually took them. In Cypress, our guide’s mumbling with a heavy accent, coupled with an almost nonexistent sound system on the bus, rendered her 100% unintelligible. The guide in Palermo, though, was perfectly understandable, but knew nothing of any of the sites on the tour. The guide in Crete was so bored he could barely bring himself to describe what we were seeing. 
 

Of course we enjoyed some excursions as well, but their overall grade was about a C, or C minus. My takeaway was that Regent (like most cruise lines) has no control over the quality of the guides in the various ports (perhaps they should, but they don’t) and that the additional cost in the cruise fair was just not worth it. And, for us, having the option to opt out of being forced to pay for a whole bunch of excursions ranging from subpar to average would definitely make cruising with them again a possibility.

 

 

Edited April 26, 2020 by BarbarianPaul
Typo

[pappy1022]

Absolutely agree with you Paul. If the included excursions were all very good then it might make sense to the cruiser that there is value. There is nothing worse then touring a port, maybe for the only time in your life, just to get a lousy tour guide. I would much prefer to take a Regent credit and arrange my own tours with guides who have established an excellent reputation. I also despise large group tours so not having to pay for them as "included" benefits would make me look at Regent more often. Yes I would pay more for private or small group tours but my experience has been that they provide a lot more value especially because I will probably be there once in my lifetime.

[Travelcat2]

Obviously, I agree with two posts.  It is unfortunate that there seems to be less people posting at th moment because included excursions disappointments have been continuous for a long tiime. 

 

Rallydave, I know what you have said and have read your posts that come across a bit as if you are posting factual information.  Obviously, unless you worked for Regent, what you are posting is an opinion - one that some of us do not agree with.  No one knows the details of the contracts between Regent and their tour operators.  

 

We do not know if the cost of the excursion changes based on how many passengers actually take the excursion.  Unfortunately, there are no-shows on just about every excursion.  We also do not know if Regent pays for the no-shows.  We do not know a lot more than we know. 

 

There is nothing wrong with having opinions - especially during this uncertain time.  However, it can be misleading if anyone states a “guess” as being factual.  On the other hand, if you have first hand knowledge of what Regent charges passengers for included excursions - what they actually cost, and the impact of passengers opting out, please state that as well

 

For me, the bottom line is that - even if Regent did not make money by allowing guests to opt out, they are giving a small credit to passengers instead of lowering fares.

Edited April 26, 2020 by Travelcat2

[rallydave]

Don't need access to the inner workings of Regent.   And my facts are NOT opinions.  They are based on common sense, how Regent manages their excursion program and how companies make profits or not.  You have talked often about Regent losing money and that is not the way to look at it nor what I have ever said.  It is all about Regent profits and customers costs for what they get and that is simply business.

 

Obviously you don't understand  business and the differene between cost and profit and since you have admitted your math abilities are not very good plus you have not provided any analyzation of how what you say will happen.  Yours are totally your opinions with no facts provided as I have.  Glad you read my detailed analysis based on business facts but, sure you did not understand it as you have not been involved in the accounting facts of business so no way you can say what you have said especially without any rationale.while I have provided rationale about my facts.

[Dolebludger]

Now, here is the main thing about this thread. It is about whether Regent and NCLH will survive what is really a financial “perfect storm” and  ever cruise again and be able to honor all those FCCs or not.  If it doesn’t survive it, those FCCs will be worth only about $3200  pp in bankruptcy court. While I feel that guests should be able to opt- out of included excursions and should be able to opt out of basic economy air legs for a reasonable credit, these are not really the problems before us,  The real issues before us is whether there will be a Regent  (and NCLH) for us to return to. 
 

I do not wish to seem like I am bragging, but we have a substantial investment portfolio. And we have a financial advisor who has kept it within about 3% of its 52 week high through this mess. Since NCLH  can be bought for around 1/6th of its 52 week high and Carnival bonds are paying about 10.5% per year, I asked my advisor about these investment possibilities. He said, and I quote “don’t touch these with a ten foot pole, you’d have more fun flushing your money down your toilet”. I don’t want to be a “negative nelly” but I also have a college minor in economics (major in marketing) plus a doctorate in law. Independently, I don’t like the financials on NCLH or any other cruise conglomerates. 
 

So we are keeping our money out of any cruise line’s hands as it might be a hassle to get it back. I’m sorry, but they are not solvent and weren’t even before the pandemic hit. I advise all others to do the same, and I hope I am wrong! 

[Travelcat2]

Rallydave, apparently we have to agree to disagree. Cruise lines are unique.  As you tend to bring up, it is not a U.S. Corporation so it is not run the same as companies that some of you have worked in. 

 

While math is not my thing, common sense is.  I have gotten far in my life based on this.  Some opinions meet my common sense tests and others do not.  I respectfully cannot buy anyone that is not in the business knowing the inner workings of Regent.

[Dolebludger]

Mathematics is not my strong suit. In my last post above, I said our financial advisor had kept our pdirtfoliar within 3% of its 52 week high. I missed a decimal point. It is within .3%. And I wish we would all confine discussion on this thread to the financial crisis facing our favorite cruise line, and place discussion of services and credits offered by it on a more appropriate thread.

[greykitty]

Oddly, I thought NCLH utilizes GAAP when filing SEC statements.  No idea where the concept of 'not being a US Corporation' has relevance?   Other than minimizing taxes.   Business be business, whether it's utilizing IFRS and/or GAAP in their accounting practices.   FYI, last time I looked NCLH uses PwC as auditor.  Or, Big Business.  Now, if/when PwC issues a going concern opinion....and I suspect that's coming should the PIPE dance come to naught.

 

I think there's an issue of understanding profit centers and how they're utilized regarding some of these opt in or opt out discussions.

 

I do agree the overriding question is whether all those FCC's will be worth anything in the not so distant future.

[Travelcat2]

Okay you guys, you are speaking a foreign language as far as I am concerned.  Due to my lack of interest in math, investments, etc., my DH handles all of that in our household.  Therefore, I admit that I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.  All I think that I know is that no one knows the details of how much Regent pays for excursions, the minimums, etc. (explained in a previous post) One would have thought that the subject would have been answered fairly quickly given the number of probable CPA’s on this thread.  It is either going to make it or it isn’t.

 

Dolebludger, I am discussing something that could affect Regent’s bottom line and am only suggesting it during the times that we are currently going through.  Regent needs to fill their ships (and not only with FCC’s).  I would love to hear of many, many booking for 2022.  I want to see cruises that are waitlisted (because they are full) 2 years in advance like we saw only 3 months ago.  During the downturn of the economy in 2009 (approximately) is when Regent implemented included excursions - not sure how many of you remember that.  So, that is 11 years ago.  It would be nice to see this change bring back everyone to Regent!

 

I am trying to suggest ways that does not require Regent to lower fares but can keep their loyal customers and have asked for other ways, besides for the opt out option that would assist Regent in doing this (crickets).   So, unless someone can tell me factual information on how much Regent would lose if they, for example, gave each person a $500 credit*if they opted out, I feel that this only speculation or opinion.  

 

Most of us know when we are interested in doing Regent excursions and when we are not.  It is dependent upon itinerary for many of us.  I know for certain that we would not take a excursions in the Caribbean.  IF this were ever implemented, the cost to the passenger would be public knowledge so they know before booking excursions if it is better to take the $500 credit and pay maybe $300 for an excursion they particularly want or not. It is unlikely that anyone would opt-out, then, when onboard the ship, decide to take an excursion that would cost $500+ out of pocket.  That simply is not logical.  

 

P.S. In lieu of a credit, I’d be happy with OBC’s.  We enjoy the Connoisseur Wine Lunch and Regent now offers other high end events (at a cost - most of us use OBC’s).  

Edited April 26, 2020 by Travelcat2

[greykitty]

I guess I'm seeing the opposite side of the discussion. Given no doubt increased costs to cruise lines whenever they restart, I don't see any management wanting to take any permanent hits to proven profit centers.  If nothing else, I would think there will be increased space assigned to medical-related care as well as assigning each crew their own cabin, no matter how tiny.  All probably changes well past due, but probably  not inexpensive in cost to implement as well as possible loss of passenger space.

 

It seems that most Regent guests like the product so much that they just 'bite the bullet' on the increased total fares to cover all inclusive options like alcohol or tours, or otherwise they'd utilize other cruise lines that don't bundle those options into the fare. 

 

Now, here's my question - let's assume there will be a private equity buy in and that reduction in costs will be in the financial agreement.  What cuts in services/amenities would the 'Regent traveller' be willing to take to keep base fares either stable or not too much higher?   Unbundling the entire all inclusive model?  Menu restructuring? Loss of butler service? Elimination of /reduced room service options? Those seem to me to be the low hanging fruit.  I'm sure experienced travellers know where the 'fat' is and have suggestions.

 

Going forward I would of course expect the cruise lines meeting or exceeding CDC regulations.  That will also incur some increased costs per line and/or company, depending on how they want to spread the expense.

Edited April 26, 2020 by greykitty

[rallydave]

7 hours ago, Travelcat2 said:

Rallydave, apparently we have to agree to disagree. Cruise lines are unique.  As you tend to bring up, it is not a U.S. Corporation so it is not run the same as companies that some of you have worked in. 

 

While math is not my thing, common sense is.  I have gotten far in my life based on this.  Some opinions meet my common sense tests and others do not.  I respectfully cannot buy anyone that is not in the business knowing the inner workings of Regent.

Yes, impossible to agree when one of us has no clue how companies work, accounting practices, profit vs loss, ability to use math, etc.   You keep talking and asking how much Regent will lose??  Loss is what occurs when the amount of money spent  exceeds the money spent, simple as that.  Neither I or anyone else other than you is talking about any loss that can only be figured at the end of an accounting period and included the entire company.  I have constantly talked about profit being lower.  Profit is what is left over after all bills are paid, simple as that and profit would be lower with your opt out scheme.  Business survive and go bankrupt based on profit and profit is how companies are rated.

 

I am based my fact on many years in business, finance, contracts, etc. while you have none of that knowledge as well as a self described inability to do math which is a key to all things business.  You say I need insight into Regents inner workings while enough information is out there since REgent is owned by a publi corporation sufficient information is publically knwn while you are basing what you say on strictly your opinion and your wants and "how much will Regent lose" which is a non-starter.

 

I have provided facts and insight into how I came to my factual information while you have provided that it is your opinion based on ???????  Yes, we can agree to disagree however I have facts on my side.