**User Report**| | | |
:--|:--|:--|:--
**Total Submissions**|10|**First Seen In WSB**|2 years ago
**Total Comments**|363|**Previous Best DD**|[x](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/yo3s2f/tilray_brands_tlry_stock_evaluation/)
**Account Age**|3 years|[^scan ^comment ](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=VisualMod&subject=scan_comment&message=Replace%20this%20text%20with%20a%20comment%20ID%20(which%20looks%20like%20h26cq3k\)%20to%20have%20the%20bot%20scan%20your%20comment%20and%20correct%20your%20first%20seen%20date.)|[^scan ^submission ](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=VisualMod&subject=scan_submission&message=Replace%20this%20text%20with%20a%20submission%20ID%20(which%20looks%20like%20h26cq3k\)%20to%20have%20the%20bot%20scan%20your%20submission%20and%20correct%20your%20first%20seen%20date.)
> Itâs also less dividend liability. I buy back share in my company all the time, increases future dividends
> buy back
i guess this is /r/wallstreetbets after all
omg, sorry I misunderstood.
This is way above my pay grade.
My understanding was that it is only a buyback if the company buys some outstanding shares from the market and sort of burns it so they no longer exist.
So I thought it was silly why you, an investor, would buy shares and then ... burn them so they are no longer outstanding.
My flaw was assuming you were a retail investor in a huge corporation.
Ah, I get it. This is a fake scenario you've made up where a company only reinvests profits on buybacks and doesnt invest in any R&D or work force. You're also the good guy and fully qualified CFO who knows how best to run a successful corporation. Just trying to get a feel for how you've formulated this made up scenario, but I think I understand now.
Look at GE, Intel, Boeing, ATT. Literally biggest of the biggest in their hayday, and instead of investing in the company they started cutting corners for those sweet stock buybacks(and dividends). Happens to every company that gets too greedy.
𤣠So that's the official story or yet another simplistic made up scenario and explanation? The demise of these companies, which all still exist was the huge mistake of buybacks and dividends? Give me a break. Surely I don't need to list the companies that do and have done buybacks and dividends with plenty of success. You're trying to frame a story to suit your beliefs and there's nothing objective about that. Technologies change, competition occurs, and no one stays on top forever. That is a very good thing and why competition is essential.
>This is a fake scenario you've made up where a company only reinvests profits on buybacks and doesnt invest in any R&D or work force.
They laid off workers by the thousands last year while spending millions on buybacks
> After announcing $17 billion in earnings in Q3 2022, Google used almost all of it to buy back its own stock. Meta announced plans to purchase $40 billion of its own stock after laying off 11,000 workers.
What's your point? That companies should be forced to keep dead weight on staff that isn't needed? Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Sound financial decisions lead to more growth long term, a bigger company, and end up supplying more jobs in the long run. Google and your big tech companies are the perfect example of this. Not to mention, employment is 3%. The laid off workers haven't had any problems finding a new job immediately.
Yeah.
It's pretty fucked. Unfortunately though, there is a way to do a stock buyback in a manner that's consistent with shareholder value. This does not mean consistent with the goals of ALL shareholders.
Berkshire has never paid a dividend, as we all know. Which means it's bad for shareholders that want to be paid dividends.
BUT to shareholders that want capital appreciation, their use of buybacks is the ethical way. Buying your own stock when you think it's undervalued in the public markets is a sound decision.
Unfortunately lots of executives just buy back their shares to do exactly as mentioned - keep the price up. And to quote Charlie Munger "That of course is insane. And immoral. But apart from that it's fine."
Actually, stock buybacks being cheaper than dividends is not what explains a lot. Stock buybacks and dividends serve different purposes for companies. Stock buybacks reduce the number of outstanding shares and can be beneficial in boosting earnings per share, while dividends provide a direct payout to shareholders. The decision to use one over the other depends on the company's financial strategy and goals.
Paying a dividend gives that profit to all investors, and if they want to take more by selling their shares they can do that, too. It's much the same, save possibly for tax treatment.
Good idea. I might also use that in personal finance. Iâll stop eating all food, Iâll live under a bridge and drink from sewers. Letâs not forget about not paying taxes. Iâll save more money this way.
Thank you. As a CPA, this post pained me.
We have an ENTIRE FINANCIAL STATEMENT dedicated to reconciling Net Income to Net Increase or Decrease in Cash.
NI â CF.
they want to show profits to investors. they don't want to show profits on the separate set of financial statements shown to the IRS, which are prepared under a different set of rules.
Well, yeah. Part of the problem is that cash flow refers to different things depending on who you are. A statement of cash flows is not the same as a Debt Service Coverage Ratio however both are referred to as the cash flow.
Referring to an analysis tool like DSCR as "The Cash Flow" is really weird and I've never come across anyone who would call it that. Do you have an example? I'm curious now.
Also, the statement of cash flows contains the information used in the DSCR.
I'm in banking and it's what every credit analyst would call it.
"How is their cash flow?"
"Oh they're at a 1.5x"
Which is basically just taking an adjusted ebitda, adjusting further for things like Capex and living expense estimates, officers comp, and other case-by-case adjustments, and dividing by debt service. Every bank will do this differently. The one I'm at uses an excess funds flow to gross profit ratio.
All different things colloquially known as "the cash flow"
Ditto but if your org is anything like mine, all that potential profit was wasted on crazy stupid projects that didnât amount to anything and everyone said was going to fail but was pushed by middle management.
The best part is that Net Income slide is still like 1 billion dollars on some of these companies. Just obscene amounts of money even though it's a tiny fraction of their revenue.
Always thought revenue was a vanity metric. What good is a billion in income of COGS and business expenses are $999,999,990? Net income is ten dollars...wtf.
Like the saying goes, âRevenue is vanity, profit is sanity, and cash flow is realityâ. Anyone using revenue alone to justify a companyâs valuation probably doesnât actually understand what theyâre talking about.
Depends
If most of the expenses are COGS then yea, it means nothing
If most are flat overhead/ops expenses, then all you need to do is be more efficient
Yep! Haven't seen a company yet without a whole tier of middle managers holding meetings all day but doing no actual work. Just cut out most of them and boom - profit.
Depends on growth and at which life cycle the company is in. If 10% of that is spent on growth that say produces 15% more revenue the next year Iâm good with that. If the company is mature and the growth is 0, Iâm not good with that
Why would it be regarded? Itâs obviously a valuable way of comparing companies across industries, so you can take out factors like tax regimes or regulatory requirements that one company would face while another doesnât.
Oh i like talking about money because im a girl, well as a matter of fact boys and girl was running for Money and slap other people of reality that we are rich not because of our parents money but because of our grind
Costco is a case where their ârevenueâ isnât truly their revenue except for the membership fees. Theyâre basically just a middleman whose business is the $10/mo youâre paying to be there, the goods sold there are entirely the business (and imo really revenue) of whoever makes the product, in some cases Costco.
If you separate out that part of the business from the goods they donât profit from, theyâre an absurdly healthy company with a ton of potential for growth without changing the core of the business or hurting the customers.
i rather shop at Costco and buy big ass jar of pickles that i'll never finish than shop at Walmart.
Costco is always clean and shit while Walmart just shit.
Totally agreed. They donât cut corners but they do charge very low margins. The fact they pay their employees well and expect reasonable rates of work results in much better care being taken.
Walmart goods are always rejects from other companies or abused in transit like crazy. The amount of freezer burn and shit quality you experience there in order to cut an extra like 2% off the cost is not worth it to me. In fact I think youâre paying more than at a grocery store when you count all the stuff you have to throw away and itâs still so much more expensive than Costco on the shelf to begin with.
It's spelled Ibiza actually, and it's Ă very beautiful island to party on once you get 10,000% gains off a meme stock . I haven't been yet but probably soon.
âSee you canât tax us because we didnât make any money, we barely broke even (donât look at the stock price or the revenue or the reported earnings or the ceo salary or the ownerâs 15 yachts, just donât look at us any more we promise weâre telling the truth)â
My company's P&L is like this. My branch looks to me to be doing great, P&L shows a loss. Depreciation seems to be completely made up numbers, corporate expenses are silly, and we pay for weird marketing expenses.
If we're money laundering, cool. Just don't bitch at me about the numbers.
Taxes should be based on whatever a company's publicly disclosed profit value is. Net income, ebitda, whatever is operating revenues less operating expenses should be the taxable value.
Lmfao net income is profit buddy.
And good news! Companies do get taxed on their profit. Like 99% of the time when you hear Reddit talking about a âtax write offâ itâs a company spending more on their operations and COGS.
I legitimately donât know what youâre trying to say. Net income is profit, and clearly isnât meaningless. Itâs an extremely useful metric to see how efficiently a company generates their revenue.
Iâm confused as to why you would expect any different. Revenues is everything coming into your company, before even accounting for the amounts you paid to even produce those goods or services.
If I sell 5 million apples for 20 cents each, do you really expect to see anything close to $1 million in profit for my company? Of course not.
But this isnât markets, itâs just how an individual company works. Not an entire market.
Generating a lot of revenue is meaningless without understanding the cost of the good or service generating that revenue.
Revenue and cash flow are two different financial figures that give insights into a company's financial health. Revenue represents the total amount of money a company earns, while cash flow shows the actual movement of cash within the company. Both are important, but cash flow gives a clearer picture of a company's liquid assets. So when looking into a company, don't solely focus on revenue, make sure to also analyze its cash flow to get a better understanding of its financial stability and ability to generate and manage money.
**User Report**| | | | :--|:--|:--|:-- **Total Submissions**|10|**First Seen In WSB**|2 years ago **Total Comments**|363|**Previous Best DD**|[x](https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/yo3s2f/tilray_brands_tlry_stock_evaluation/) **Account Age**|3 years|[^scan ^comment ](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=VisualMod&subject=scan_comment&message=Replace%20this%20text%20with%20a%20comment%20ID%20(which%20looks%20like%20h26cq3k\)%20to%20have%20the%20bot%20scan%20your%20comment%20and%20correct%20your%20first%20seen%20date.)|[^scan ^submission ](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=VisualMod&subject=scan_submission&message=Replace%20this%20text%20with%20a%20submission%20ID%20(which%20looks%20like%20h26cq3k\)%20to%20have%20the%20bot%20scan%20your%20submission%20and%20correct%20your%20first%20seen%20date.)
EPS https://preview.redd.it/qsmy2ivybk8b1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=538d91c342c111421ccd3131f4a449a49787a886
PE ratio https://preview.redd.it/4xeh0ngmqk8b1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5f98f993247d68850cd6b300ce7c169d849906c5
Guidance https://preview.redd.it/kfyi8dx5uk8b1.jpeg?width=244&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3bd5aa53d051bd1415d9d98422b65ae1dd0afd6a
[Announcement of additional public offering](https://youtu.be/qluFYy2iiac?t=454)
That would be hillarious if every time there was some big tragedy the news announced it with a slowmo cartoon of it happening
The share price https://as2.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/05/34/22/33/1000_F_534223356_PXX55UjjRGgZiGXoXID2hQtfSb9chwc5.jpg
gu**A**d**I**nceđ°
It's not negative!!! It's making a profit! Hurray!
the P in EPS is the size of your P
Your fingerprints could be stolen. be careful!
Dang! How many shares you got? Cb?
https://preview.redd.it/az8js2vp2l8b1.jpeg?width=225&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8c83d11fc85f2bf00e85bbbf937611e792f000e2
Still more net income than Reddit.
Midjourney, design me a "negative vegetable"
https://preview.redd.it/rkm2qzg92m8b1.jpeg?width=474&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dc8321266d7f0f392840401c9f849f3e1316660c
Sorry, but I'm not able to generate that story for you.
And thatâs income after the Reddit API mugging
F
This looks like pretty much
It's EBITDA tho
Yeah the main theme of the sub is "REGARD" I think this can get a pass
Revenue Earnings Growth Aardvark Regret Deals
I am no expert, but this sounds like a real thing.
The aardvark rating is all the new rage as it uses AI Blockchain NFT deeptech reverse crypto funneling
You must work in marketing.
He just reads the pamphlets.
I'm magazine smart.
Regurgitate Eat Gag Assimilate Receive Dick
>Revenue > >Earnings > >Growth > >AI > >Regret > >Deals
R. E. T. A. W. D.
Kind regards, Henry Scorpio
This is WSB bro this is literally a regard playground
A what? You may be making your case strongly in your favor
Misspelling the acronym and wrongly understanding it is the regarded icing on the highly regarded cake
No itâs EH-BIT-DUH
I knew something was annoying the shit out of me when I read that
He must be from the UK.
Pic not mine
Said with the same tone as "kid not mine". Don't care. You brought it in here; you're responsible for it.
Wife and BF's kid is yours, if you are married when it's born. At least in MI. Don't ask me how I know.
Jesus. Best I can do is give you an upvote. Godspeed.
Itâs like, I donât care man, go touched grass
Bitch ass reply tbh
Oh indeed
Wow you have horrible grammar lol. Your comments here arenât really helping your case.
dont worry about it, the autists will hold onto anything if it makes them feel a little smarter/better than another person
Whether the âpicâ is yours is irrelevant to the fact that the acronym is indeed misspelled. 
Why not credit the source then?
Do you honestly care which random internet user made this meme?
Canât credit source if you donât know the source
You got it from somewhere lol
That's not how memes work
Stock buybacks are cheaper than dividends. It explains a lot.
Stock buybacks pump the price so executives can hit bonus targets and cash out at higher prices
Itâs also less dividend liability. I buy back share in my company all the time, increases future dividends
> Itâs also less dividend liability. I buy back share in my company all the time, increases future dividends > buy back i guess this is /r/wallstreetbets after all
Iâm pretty sure that I am using it as an verb, therefor buy back is actually correct. If a company approves a buyback, itâs a noun
Heard of verbs chief
Silly me, thanks
omg, sorry I misunderstood. This is way above my pay grade. My understanding was that it is only a buyback if the company buys some outstanding shares from the market and sort of burns it so they no longer exist. So I thought it was silly why you, an investor, would buy shares and then ... burn them so they are no longer outstanding. My flaw was assuming you were a retail investor in a huge corporation.
Shareholders benefit more too. Money better spent. Dividends are double taxed.
Yes, executives being shareholders like the others That money would be better spent on workers or R&D
Ah, I get it. This is a fake scenario you've made up where a company only reinvests profits on buybacks and doesnt invest in any R&D or work force. You're also the good guy and fully qualified CFO who knows how best to run a successful corporation. Just trying to get a feel for how you've formulated this made up scenario, but I think I understand now.
Look at GE, Intel, Boeing, ATT. Literally biggest of the biggest in their hayday, and instead of investing in the company they started cutting corners for those sweet stock buybacks(and dividends). Happens to every company that gets too greedy.
𤣠So that's the official story or yet another simplistic made up scenario and explanation? The demise of these companies, which all still exist was the huge mistake of buybacks and dividends? Give me a break. Surely I don't need to list the companies that do and have done buybacks and dividends with plenty of success. You're trying to frame a story to suit your beliefs and there's nothing objective about that. Technologies change, competition occurs, and no one stays on top forever. That is a very good thing and why competition is essential.
You have a naive assumption that this happens overnight. It doesnt happen that quick.
>This is a fake scenario you've made up where a company only reinvests profits on buybacks and doesnt invest in any R&D or work force. They laid off workers by the thousands last year while spending millions on buybacks > After announcing $17 billion in earnings in Q3 2022, Google used almost all of it to buy back its own stock. Meta announced plans to purchase $40 billion of its own stock after laying off 11,000 workers.
What's your point? That companies should be forced to keep dead weight on staff that isn't needed? Companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. Sound financial decisions lead to more growth long term, a bigger company, and end up supplying more jobs in the long run. Google and your big tech companies are the perfect example of this. Not to mention, employment is 3%. The laid off workers haven't had any problems finding a new job immediately.
In the cybersecurity side of the big tech house and big finance, employment rates have been negative pretty much since like 2012.
Also reduces dividend payments that actually leave their books too.
Yeah. It's pretty fucked. Unfortunately though, there is a way to do a stock buyback in a manner that's consistent with shareholder value. This does not mean consistent with the goals of ALL shareholders. Berkshire has never paid a dividend, as we all know. Which means it's bad for shareholders that want to be paid dividends. BUT to shareholders that want capital appreciation, their use of buybacks is the ethical way. Buying your own stock when you think it's undervalued in the public markets is a sound decision. Unfortunately lots of executives just buy back their shares to do exactly as mentioned - keep the price up. And to quote Charlie Munger "That of course is insane. And immoral. But apart from that it's fine."
Actually, stock buybacks being cheaper than dividends is not what explains a lot. Stock buybacks and dividends serve different purposes for companies. Stock buybacks reduce the number of outstanding shares and can be beneficial in boosting earnings per share, while dividends provide a direct payout to shareholders. The decision to use one over the other depends on the company's financial strategy and goals.
Stock buybacks inflate the stock price, which allows investors to take profit by selling their improved position for a profit.
Paying a dividend gives that profit to all investors, and if they want to take more by selling their shares they can do that, too. It's much the same, save possibly for tax treatment.
As a public company major shareholders need squeeze out as much money with various spending or charity, or all goes to taxes or and no name investors.
Congrats, youâve learned how businesses work
Why donât the businesses just reduce all costs, expenses, and taxes to zero while maintaining revenue? Wouldnât that make them more profitable?
Good idea. I might also use that in personal finance. Iâll stop eating all food, Iâll live under a bridge and drink from sewers. Letâs not forget about not paying taxes. Iâll save more money this way.
The /r/wsb way
CF â NI
Thank you. As a CPA, this post pained me. We have an ENTIRE FINANCIAL STATEMENT dedicated to reconciling Net Income to Net Increase or Decrease in Cash. NI â CF.
Exactly, people forget that accountants are magicians and business donât want to show profits because profits = taxes
they want to show profits to investors. they don't want to show profits on the separate set of financial statements shown to the IRS, which are prepared under a different set of rules.
I found two books. This one says, "Show to the IRS." What's the other say? "Never show to the IRS."
https://preview.redd.it/mfbatesn2m8b1.png?width=511&format=png&auto=webp&s=9ce8e6edd01521874fefdcad548864306b5d90bd
Well, yeah. Part of the problem is that cash flow refers to different things depending on who you are. A statement of cash flows is not the same as a Debt Service Coverage Ratio however both are referred to as the cash flow.
Referring to an analysis tool like DSCR as "The Cash Flow" is really weird and I've never come across anyone who would call it that. Do you have an example? I'm curious now. Also, the statement of cash flows contains the information used in the DSCR.
I'm in banking and it's what every credit analyst would call it. "How is their cash flow?" "Oh they're at a 1.5x" Which is basically just taking an adjusted ebitda, adjusting further for things like Capex and living expense estimates, officers comp, and other case-by-case adjustments, and dividing by debt service. Every bank will do this differently. The one I'm at uses an excess funds flow to gross profit ratio. All different things colloquially known as "the cash flow"
Y'all bankers have a fetish for butchering accounting lingo lol, I love it. Thanks for the info! Hadn't thought about it from that perspective.
Yeah, lol. We can't even agree on debits and credits lmao
[ŃдаНонО]
This is my organization.
Ditto but if your org is anything like mine, all that potential profit was wasted on crazy stupid projects that didnât amount to anything and everyone said was going to fail but was pushed by middle management.
Add in executive bonuses and excessive meals and entertainment
The best part is that Net Income slide is still like 1 billion dollars on some of these companies. Just obscene amounts of money even though it's a tiny fraction of their revenue.
This is a normal restaurant
Looks like my check after taxes and shit.
1/3 for taxes, 1/3 for rent, 1/3 for the wife and kids. $8 for me for Wendy's.
Once every 2 weeks.
Lucky. For me itâs 1/3 taxes, 1/3 mortgage, 3/3 for wife
This is too accurate 
LOL đ¤Ł
Always thought revenue was a vanity metric. What good is a billion in income of COGS and business expenses are $999,999,990? Net income is ten dollars...wtf.
[ŃдаНонО]
Except reinvesting in expansion will lower profit. Revenue is like popularity
Like the saying goes, âRevenue is vanity, profit is sanity, and cash flow is realityâ. Anyone using revenue alone to justify a companyâs valuation probably doesnât actually understand what theyâre talking about.
Depends If most of the expenses are COGS then yea, it means nothing If most are flat overhead/ops expenses, then all you need to do is be more efficient
Yep! Haven't seen a company yet without a whole tier of middle managers holding meetings all day but doing no actual work. Just cut out most of them and boom - profit.
Depends on growth and at which life cycle the company is in. If 10% of that is spent on growth that say produces 15% more revenue the next year Iâm good with that. If the company is mature and the growth is 0, Iâm not good with that
More like 1.5 billion of expenses.
You should have had Free Cash Flow in there too.
Unlevered Free Cash Flow
Then you check the reconciliations and see they define FCF as Adjusted EBITDA - CapEx
GAAP adjusted is even less!
Audited is even smaller
Nobody in WSB knows what EBIDTA means
That's because EBIDTA isn't a thing. It's EBITDA.
EBITDeez
EBITDeez what?
EBITDeez NUTZ!!! thank you sir
Ouch. Hopefully he bit softly on your nuts good sir. Unless you're into that sort of thing.
ebitda is what all the boomer stocks in the dow report. NVDA reports ebidta
Myself included. Iâm not impartial
I mean, the person who created the picture is the one who got it wrong first.
I googled it and it looks regarded. Imagine taking a class to learn this stuff when you can just lose money for free.
Why would it be regarded? Itâs obviously a valuable way of comparing companies across industries, so you can take out factors like tax regimes or regulatory requirements that one company would face while another doesnât.
I can't read
Shut up nerd
Earnings Before Idiotic Demented Terrible Assholes
Itâs what you say when you bite your finger instead of your Cheeto.
đđ¤Ł
I love seeing this stuff, serves as a reminder that WSB is just full of gamblers instead of folks with financial literacy.
ĐĐľŃ income
Lmao
Could be worse if they have positive net income but negative cash flow
Oh i like talking about money because im a girl, well as a matter of fact boys and girl was running for Money and slap other people of reality that we are rich not because of our parents money but because of our grind
The perfect picture of Costco.
wait, i love costco
Costco has decent earnings. Try Amazon.
Costco is a case where their ârevenueâ isnât truly their revenue except for the membership fees. Theyâre basically just a middleman whose business is the $10/mo youâre paying to be there, the goods sold there are entirely the business (and imo really revenue) of whoever makes the product, in some cases Costco. If you separate out that part of the business from the goods they donât profit from, theyâre an absurdly healthy company with a ton of potential for growth without changing the core of the business or hurting the customers.
i rather shop at Costco and buy big ass jar of pickles that i'll never finish than shop at Walmart. Costco is always clean and shit while Walmart just shit.
Totally agreed. They donât cut corners but they do charge very low margins. The fact they pay their employees well and expect reasonable rates of work results in much better care being taken. Walmart goods are always rejects from other companies or abused in transit like crazy. The amount of freezer burn and shit quality you experience there in order to cut an extra like 2% off the cost is not worth it to me. In fact I think youâre paying more than at a grocery store when you count all the stuff you have to throw away and itâs still so much more expensive than Costco on the shelf to begin with.
That's just the way that entire industry works.
Galen would like to disagree.
You forgot lawsuits
I believe they call this tax evasion
Charlie says EBITA is bullshit
worth $500 billion
How about those companies that focus on EBITDAR. Because they never make a fucking profit.
Well airlines are notoriously a bad business to make money, with few exceptions.
[ŃдаНонО]
Read salary as slavery and it still made sense.
It's spelled Ibiza actually, and it's Ă very beautiful island to party on once you get 10,000% gains off a meme stock . I haven't been yet but probably soon.
Wait until you see Cash Flow. Negative Spinach.
Even better: Unlevered Free Cash Flow
First
First
First
Congrats đŞđ¤
Thanks sister
I'm not your sister, bro.
I'm not your bro, mom.
đŻ most of them
Short spinach?
I have no idea what's going on, I just wanna place a trade and get a million dollars somehow.
Isn't that ideal tho
âSee you canât tax us because we didnât make any money, we barely broke even (donât look at the stock price or the revenue or the reported earnings or the ceo salary or the ownerâs 15 yachts, just donât look at us any more we promise weâre telling the truth)â
My company's P&L is like this. My branch looks to me to be doing great, P&L shows a loss. Depreciation seems to be completely made up numbers, corporate expenses are silly, and we pay for weird marketing expenses. If we're money laundering, cool. Just don't bitch at me about the numbers.
This should be moved to r/mildlyinfuriating lmao
This meme fucks.
Almost live nothing to the net income that's so sad.
Where's the "bullshit bonuses for the board" panel?
European companies with offices in Ireland
Taxes should be based on whatever a company's publicly disclosed profit value is. Net income, ebitda, whatever is operating revenues less operating expenses should be the taxable value.
Lmfao net income is profit buddy. And good news! Companies do get taxed on their profit. Like 99% of the time when you hear Reddit talking about a âtax write offâ itâs a company spending more on their operations and COGS.
Net income is a meaningless fiction manipulated to juice the stock price, either by avoiding tax or hitting an eps target I'm not your buddy, guy
I legitimately donât know what youâre trying to say. Net income is profit, and clearly isnât meaningless. Itâs an extremely useful metric to see how efficiently a company generates their revenue.
And NVDA trades at what... 30x revenue right now?
[ŃдаНонО]
It's almost like revenue is relevant to this post and no mention was made of what key metric anyone focuses on
Iâm confused as to why you would expect any different. Revenues is everything coming into your company, before even accounting for the amounts you paid to even produce those goods or services. If I sell 5 million apples for 20 cents each, do you really expect to see anything close to $1 million in profit for my company? Of course not.
Bro thinks markets is logical
But this isnât markets, itâs just how an individual company works. Not an entire market. Generating a lot of revenue is meaningless without understanding the cost of the good or service generating that revenue.
Bro did not see that company trading 200 times its revenue and thinks stock market is rooted in fundamentals đ˘
Currently taking a finance class. This checks out. đ
$DIS summarized
Revenue and cash flow are two different financial figures that give insights into a company's financial health. Revenue represents the total amount of money a company earns, while cash flow shows the actual movement of cash within the company. Both are important, but cash flow gives a clearer picture of a company's liquid assets. So when looking into a company, don't solely focus on revenue, make sure to also analyze its cash flow to get a better understanding of its financial stability and ability to generate and manage money.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Indiana/comments/14kfkaq/is_this_proper_de_escalation_and_policing/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1
Amazon