What you have failed to take into account IMO is the lease "liabilities" that will be booked differently with the new accounting rules.
I have aired my opinion on this many a time but will do so again.
With the new accounting standards leases are being brought onto the books as liabilities on the balance sheet in a similar way to debt, ie; 30 year lease = x amount of "liability".
This IMO is too simplistic and fails to take into account the difference between an asset and a liability.
For example MYR has many leases it wishes to exit as they are for under-performing stores that don't make a commercial return on their equity, this most certainly does IMO fall under the category of liability.
However I don't believe the many stores on long term leases that are high returning stores that MYR would never dream of getting rid of should be classified as "liabilities", they should in fact be logged as assets under the new standard for it to be a true representation of the strength of a business.
For a business that owned the site it would be classified as an asset regardless, this is also not representative of the true nature of the asset/ liability in question IMO.
I like Robert Kiyosaki's definition of assets vs liabilities, put very simply and to paraphrase Robert:
"An asset puts money into your pocket, a liability takes money out"
How much clearer would annual reports and balance sheets look if it were made this simple?
That's exactly why it won't be of course
(20min delay)