So if these studios have partners in advertising that cover a portion of advertising cost, and partners that cover some of the production cost with product placing ***cough Mike Bay****, it makes it impossible to do an outside profit cost analysis because unless you have insider knowledge of the books.
It's really guesstimating at best and bullshyt at worst, and these studios could be crying wolf on how much is being made and loss
That's the point. Hollywood makes most of its money by cooking the books. Somewhere in the middle of the 20th century studios started paying high profile actors with a percentage of the net profit, thus determining the worth of an actor literally by the money they bring in. They started extending net profit deals when they realized that there are so many factors involved they could easily whip up some accounting magic saying the movie made no net profit, thus they wouldn't have to pay out a whole lot of money. And of course, the less profit a film makes, the less taxes you have to pay as well. Uwe Boll infamously exploited a German tax law which allowed him to write off the entire movie's production cost as well as additional tax breaks in case the movies didn't break even. Boll thus deliberately made terrible movies so what little money they did make, turned into 100% profit. Add that he also got paid a salary as a writer, director and producer and he made millions this way while the internet wondered 'Who the hell would fund one of his movies?'. Smart investors, it turned out.
Here's another fun example:
On paper The Empire Strikes Back never made any net profit. Let that one sink in.
The actor who portrayed Vader sued the studio because of how much bullshyt it was (he was contracted to a net profit deal and since the movie was reported to make no net profit, he didn't get paid). The case was eventually settled but it's a clear example of Hollywood cooking the books.
Another big trick in Hollywood is attributing enormous parts of the budget to costs made by companies they own. Say a studio spends 10 million on building sets. Who do you think they hire? Why, of course they hire a daughter company of the studio so the studio essentially pays itself 10 million. On paper they made some huge costs (thus lowering net profit) while in reality they just shuffled the money around in their own company. You start adding product placements and outside investors to the equation (none of which are mentioned in the budget since it only specifies costs, not investments) and a movie often costs the studio far less than they pretend it does. They simply pretend they cost them a lot of money.
Of course a studio can't sustain a series of serious flops because their movies do actually need to bring in some money but more often than not, the rule that a movie has to make twice its budget is only true on paper.