- Joined
- Apr 8, 2008
- Messages
- 19,883
- Reaction score
- 5,120
- Location
- 0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Other
Right. "Just because they are losing money, doesn't mean they are not profitable"
I've really enjoyed watching the way economic illiterates have tried every way they can to make this sentence true for them.
But that doesn't mean the company is actually losing money. Read the past few pages how companies can easily and legally turn a GAAP profit into a GAAP loss. Shewolf is not wrong, but she's not utilizing the strongest argument out there to prove her point.
Answer me this.
A corporation on 12/30/2011 buys back $50 million in stock. It previously had a pre-tax income of $25 million. Have they really lost money in the sense of on going operations?
Right. "Just because they are losing money, doesn't mean they are not profitable"...
I've really enjoyed watching the way economic illiterates have tried every way they can to make this sentence true for them.
Lordy... Sarah Palin's twin: twice the education, but half the brains.
It depends how we are defining profit. Bottom line reporting on 10Ks doesn't reveal the truth. That's what the cash flow statement is for as it backs out many of the reserves, stock buy backs and other methods of reducing income. I already detailed several ways a company can report a net loss but still be profitable. You have not refuted a single one yet.
I've really enjoyed watching the way economic illiterates try to cast those who have demonstrated superior knowledge as being wrong while utterly and completely failing to refute a single argument presented as to why a company who reports a net loss for GAAP can actually be profitable while offering no arguments themselves.
Are you too cowardly to answer my stock buyback question?
I'm not sure how you think sniping while deliberately avoiding the hard questions makes you right.
At this point, I seriously doubt you know what a 10K is. Much less any of the terms being used here. You have demonstrated no understanding of the topic at all.
President Bachmann it is.
You've demonstrated the inability to stay on topic. So let me see you do it, bet you can't.
:beatdeadhorse
Economic illiterates.... you're still going to argue you know more but can't demonstrate that you do? You haven't even tried to demonstrate why a loss means zero profit. Keep repeating it over and over again, if anything you just demonstrate over and over again that your confused about the terms profit and loss.
I suspect Grant is another user who doesn't like me for some reason or other.
Oh what the heck. You might as well add me too. I don't like you either.I suspect Grant is another user who doesn't like me for some reason or other and knows he cannot actually win an argument against me. I have this hate club. American's in it.
I seldom give your posts serious notice (the name you've chosen is the probable reason) and only did this time because i noticed my name mentioned.
I neither like you or dislike you. You mean nothing to me one way or the other.
You can now relax.
Oh what the heck. You might as well add me too. I don't like you either.
Clearly true.I don't give a ****.
What does RTRF stand for?
Answers.com - Can a business earn a gross profit but incur a net loss
Do some research, ask other people who work in accounting, finance, economics, executive management, etc. We aren't distorting facts or digging deep to support our statements. You guys are extremely ill informed... I honestly find it it shocking, and feel it's not right that people in the same country as me cling to such ignorance.
Who was talking about "Gross Profit"? I am an accountant BTW.
Having revenue != making profits.
Join the club. Shewolf isn't wrong though. A company can be making a profit but report a loss. Back out transactions such as overly generous reserve accounts and stock buy backs and a company that reports a loss now can have a tidy profit. Furthermore, GAAP requires recognizing losses that are determinable in both amount and time. So even if the company actually hasn't incurred it, it reports the loss. If that loss is sufficently large enough to wipe out a profit, then it reports a net loss even if for the year that outflow hasn't been paid and they actually made money. There are plenty of ways Shewolf isn't wrong. She just didn't use the strongest arguments out there.
Furthermore:
Is wrong. A company can pull in $500 million in revenue but have $600 million in costs. Revenue =/= Profit.
The reason this is absurd is that by this standard, almost ALL manufacturing jobs are "making a profit" because no one would sell something for less than its cost of goods sold. Turning a Gross Profit is meaningless and the easiest thing to do in business.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?