Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.electronics.design > #447059 > unrolled thread

don't understand finance

Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design

Contents

  don't understand finance John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-09 11:58 -0800
    Re: don't understand finance Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-09 22:54 +0000
      Re: don't understand finance Joerg <news@analogconsultants.com> - 2017-02-09 16:24 -0800
        Re: don't understand finance Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-10 00:47 +0000
    Re: don't understand finance Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> - 2017-02-09 17:58 -0600
    Re: don't understand finance Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2017-02-10 00:55 +0000
      Re: don't understand finance rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 20:02 -0500
        Re: don't understand finance Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-02-09 17:07 -0800
        Re: don't understand finance Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com> - 2017-02-11 23:57 -0600
          Re: don't understand finance rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-02-12 01:08 -0500
            Re: don't understand finance krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-12 17:03 -0500
              Re: don't understand finance pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 14:18 -0800
                Re: don't understand finance krw@notreal.com - 2017-02-12 17:40 -0500
                Re: don't understand finance John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 14:54 -0800
          Re: don't understand finance John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-12 14:51 -0800
    Re: don't understand finance Cursitor Doom <curd@notformail.com> - 2017-02-10 16:07 +0000
    Re: don't understand finance Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2017-02-10 11:51 -0600
      Re: don't understand finance John Larkin <jjlarkinxyxy@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-02-10 11:22 -0800
        Re: don't understand finance Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2017-02-10 14:11 -0600
    Re: don't understand finance Winfield Hill <hill@rowland.harvard.edu> - 2017-02-10 14:07 -0800

#447059 — don't understand finance

http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/02/09/twitter-shares-crash-following-quarterly-earnings-report-release/

How can they have earnings of 16 cents per share, but a loss of $144
million in the same quarter?

I wonder what Twitter does to have expenses around a few billion a
year. The free food and bean-bag chairs can't cost that much.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#447097

On 09/02/17 19:58, John Larkin wrote:
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/02/09/twitter-shares-crash-following-quarterly-earnings-report-release/
>
> How can they have earnings of 16 cents per share, but a loss of $144
> million in the same quarter?
>
> I wonder what Twitter does to have expenses around a few billion a
> year. The free food and bean-bag chairs can't cost that much.

What's two plus two?
Bad accountant: 3.
Normal accountant: 4.
Good accountant: "what do you want it to be?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447110

On 2017-02-09 14:54, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 09/02/17 19:58, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/02/09/twitter-shares-crash-following-quarterly-earnings-report-release/
>>
>>
>> How can they have earnings of 16 cents per share, but a loss of $144
>> million in the same quarter?
>>
>> I wonder what Twitter does to have expenses around a few billion a
>> year. The free food and bean-bag chairs can't cost that much.
>
> What's two plus two?
> Bad accountant: 3.
> Normal accountant: 4.
> Good accountant: "what do you want it to be?"
>

Really bright accountant: "-18527, and I can get you a nice loss 
carry-forward for the next, oh, 10 years or so"

:-)

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447116

On 10/02/17 00:24, Joerg wrote:
> On 2017-02-09 14:54, Tom Gardner wrote:
>> On 09/02/17 19:58, John Larkin wrote:
>>>
>>> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/02/09/twitter-shares-crash-following-quarterly-earnings-report-release/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How can they have earnings of 16 cents per share, but a loss of $144
>>> million in the same quarter?
>>>
>>> I wonder what Twitter does to have expenses around a few billion a
>>> year. The free food and bean-bag chairs can't cost that much.
>>
>> What's two plus two?
>> Bad accountant: 3.
>> Normal accountant: 4.
>> Good accountant: "what do you want it to be?"
>>
>
> Really bright accountant: "-18527, and I can get you a nice loss carry-forward
> for the next, oh, 10 years or so"
>
> :-)

Bookmarked :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447108

John Larkin wrote:

> 
> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/02/09/twitter-shares-crash-following-
quarterly-earnings-report-release/
> 
> How can they have earnings of 16 cents per share, but a loss of $144
> million in the same quarter?
> 
Very easy.  (I am not an accountant and don't play oen on TV, but I do my 
own business taxes.)  The earnings are from their real sales of whatever it 
is Twitter sells, I guess advertising.  The loss is something that they are 
claiming to the IRS so they don't have to pay taxes on ther net.  And, you 
can deduct a whole RANGE of crazy stuff like depreciation of the value of 
your "goodwill".  Or, at least, if you have an inventive accountant, you can 
try to deduct that stuff.

Jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447118

On 09/02/17 19:58, John Larkin wrote:
>
> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/02/09/twitter-shares-crash-following-quarterly-earnings-report-release/
>
> How can they have earnings of 16 cents per share, but a loss of $144
> million in the same quarter?
>
> I wonder what Twitter does to have expenses around a few billion a
> year. The free food and bean-bag chairs can't cost that much.

Movie stars will accept payment in terms of a share
of the movie's gross receipts, but not its profit.

Why? Because Hollywood accountants are adept at
ensuring no movie ever make a profit - because
that could be taxed.

The only definition of money that I've ever been
able to understand is that, as it says on my banknotes,
a "promise". Believe the promise, and all is well.
Don't believe it and the edifice resembles Zimbabwe.
Money is a useful fiction.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447121

On 2/9/2017 7:55 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 09/02/17 19:58, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/02/09/twitter-shares-crash-following-quarterly-earnings-report-release/
>>
>>
>> How can they have earnings of 16 cents per share, but a loss of $144
>> million in the same quarter?
>>
>> I wonder what Twitter does to have expenses around a few billion a
>> year. The free food and bean-bag chairs can't cost that much.
>
> Movie stars will accept payment in terms of a share
> of the movie's gross receipts, but not its profit.
>
> Why? Because Hollywood accountants are adept at
> ensuring no movie ever make a profit - because
> that could be taxed.

That's not exactly right.  If the movie owes payments on profits then 
they will make the profit in any of the many service companies that the 
studio owns rather than the movie itself making the money.  Taxes have 
to be paid by someone if there is profit.  If there is no profit, 
there's not much reason to be in business.  The only question is who 
makes the profit and who pays the taxes.

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447122

Den fredag den 10. februar 2017 kl. 02.02.05 UTC+1 skrev rickman:
> On 2/9/2017 7:55 PM, Tom Gardner wrote:
> > On 09/02/17 19:58, John Larkin wrote:
> >>
> >> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/02/09/twitter-shares-crash-following-quarterly-earnings-report-release/
> >>
> >>
> >> How can they have earnings of 16 cents per share, but a loss of $144
> >> million in the same quarter?
> >>
> >> I wonder what Twitter does to have expenses around a few billion a
> >> year. The free food and bean-bag chairs can't cost that much.
> >
> > Movie stars will accept payment in terms of a share
> > of the movie's gross receipts, but not its profit.
> >
> > Why? Because Hollywood accountants are adept at
> > ensuring no movie ever make a profit - because
> > that could be taxed.
> 
> That's not exactly right.  If the movie owes payments on profits then 
> they will make the profit in any of the many service companies that the 
> studio owns rather than the movie itself making the money.  Taxes have 
> to be paid by someone if there is profit.  If there is no profit, 
> there's not much reason to be in business.  The only question is who 
> makes the profit and who pays the taxes.

unless one of those service companies happen to be located in a place where there are no taxes 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447380

rickman wrote:


> That's not exactly right.  If the movie owes payments on profits then
> they will make the profit in any of the many service companies that the
> studio owns rather than the movie itself making the money.  Taxes have
> to be paid by someone if there is profit.  If there is no profit,
> there's not much reason to be in business.  The only question is who
> makes the profit and who pays the taxes.
> 
Ahh, but profit comes AFTER salaries are paid.  Looks like you're going to 
make a big profit on something?  Quick, raise your salary!  Voila, no more 
"profit".

Jon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447383

On 2/12/2017 12:57 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
> rickman wrote:
>
>
>> That's not exactly right.  If the movie owes payments on profits then
>> they will make the profit in any of the many service companies that the
>> studio owns rather than the movie itself making the money.  Taxes have
>> to be paid by someone if there is profit.  If there is no profit,
>> there's not much reason to be in business.  The only question is who
>> makes the profit and who pays the taxes.
>>
> Ahh, but profit comes AFTER salaries are paid.  Looks like you're going to
> make a big profit on something?  Quick, raise your salary!  Voila, no more
> "profit".

No, then it's *income* which not only requires taxes, but FICA!

-- 

Rick C

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447462

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 01:08:03 -0500, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/12/2017 12:57 AM, Jon Elson wrote:
>> rickman wrote:
>>
>>
>>> That's not exactly right.  If the movie owes payments on profits then
>>> they will make the profit in any of the many service companies that the
>>> studio owns rather than the movie itself making the money.  Taxes have
>>> to be paid by someone if there is profit.  If there is no profit,
>>> there's not much reason to be in business.  The only question is who
>>> makes the profit and who pays the taxes.
>>>
>> Ahh, but profit comes AFTER salaries are paid.  Looks like you're going to
>> make a big profit on something?  Quick, raise your salary!  Voila, no more
>> "profit".
>
>No, then it's *income* which not only requires taxes, but FICA!

But salary is only taxed once.  That's why tax lawyers make the big
bux.  The tax law is so convoluted that it takes a lawyer to even try
to sort it all out.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447466

>But salary is only taxed once.

That's what LLCs and S-Corps are for. It's just C-Corps that have the double-taxation problem. 

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447471

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:18:12 -0800 (PST), pcdhobbs@gmail.com wrote:

>>But salary is only taxed once.
>
>That's what LLCs and S-Corps are for. It's just C-Corps that have the double-taxation problem. 

Sure but the point of them is that the corporation and the individual
are the same.  They're quite limited and I doubt many movie companies
are S-Corps.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447476

On Sun, 12 Feb 2017 14:18:12 -0800 (PST), pcdhobbs@gmail.com wrote:

>>But salary is only taxed once.
>
>That's what LLCs and S-Corps are for. It's just C-Corps that have the double-taxation problem. 

Only on dividends. Salaries, bonuses, health care, 401K, educational
stipends are all expenses.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447475

On Sat, 11 Feb 2017 23:57:06 -0600, Jon Elson <elson@pico-systems.com>
wrote:

>rickman wrote:
>
>
>> That's not exactly right.  If the movie owes payments on profits then
>> they will make the profit in any of the many service companies that the
>> studio owns rather than the movie itself making the money.  Taxes have
>> to be paid by someone if there is profit.  If there is no profit,
>> there's not much reason to be in business.  The only question is who
>> makes the profit and who pays the taxes.
>> 
>Ahh, but profit comes AFTER salaries are paid.  Looks like you're going to 
>make a big profit on something?  Quick, raise your salary!  Voila, no more 
>"profit".
>
>Jon

Just federal income tax, state income tax, FICA, workman's comp, and a
few other things heaped on that salary.

A big company 401K contribution, or a giant pizza order, is a better
way to dump profits. Deductable to the company, no increase in
employees taxes.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

lunatic fringe electronics 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447160

On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 11:58:20 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/02/09/twitter-shares-crash-following-
quarterly-earnings-report-release/
> 
> How can they have earnings of 16 cents per share, but a loss of $144
> million in the same quarter?
> 
> I wonder what Twitter does to have expenses around a few billion a year.
> The free food and bean-bag chairs can't cost that much.

No time to read your link, John, but maybe they're deferring the loss til 
the next tax year for tax planning purposes?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447183

On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 11:58:20 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/02/09/twitter-shares-crash-following-quarterly-earnings-report-release/
> 
> How can they have earnings of 16 cents per share, but a loss of $144
> million in the same quarter?
> 
> I wonder what Twitter does to have expenses around a few billion a
> year. The free food and bean-bag chairs can't cost that much.

Accounting tricks.  They are using non-gaap for the +.16 per share.  From the share holder letter:

GAAP net loss in the quarter was $167 million, resulting in GAAP diluted EPS
of ($0.23). Non-GAAP net income was $119 million and non-GAAP diluted EPS
was $0.16.



-- 
Chisolm
Republic of Texas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447191

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:51:57 -0600, Joe Chisolm
<jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 11:58:20 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>
>> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/02/09/twitter-shares-crash-following-quarterly-earnings-report-release/
>> 
>> How can they have earnings of 16 cents per share, but a loss of $144
>> million in the same quarter?
>> 
>> I wonder what Twitter does to have expenses around a few billion a
>> year. The free food and bean-bag chairs can't cost that much.
>
>Accounting tricks.  They are using non-gaap for the +.16 per share.  From the share holder letter:
>
>GAAP net loss in the quarter was $167 million, resulting in GAAP diluted EPS
>of ($0.23). Non-GAAP net income was $119 million and non-GAAP diluted EPS
>was $0.16.

Oh, OK, they are cheating.

Long term, you can't hide running out of money.


-- 

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing   precision measurement 

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447200

On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:22:51 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

> On Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:51:57 -0600, Joe Chisolm
> <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 09 Feb 2017 11:58:20 -0800, John Larkin wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/02/09/twitter-shares-crash-following-quarterly-earnings-report-release/
>>> 
>>> How can they have earnings of 16 cents per share, but a loss of $144
>>> million in the same quarter?
>>> 
>>> I wonder what Twitter does to have expenses around a few billion a
>>> year. The free food and bean-bag chairs can't cost that much.
>>
>>Accounting tricks.  They are using non-gaap for the +.16 per share.  From the share holder letter:
>>
>>GAAP net loss in the quarter was $167 million, resulting in GAAP diluted EPS
>>of ($0.23). Non-GAAP net income was $119 million and non-GAAP diluted EPS
>>was $0.16.
> 
> Oh, OK, they are cheating.
> 
> Long term, you can't hide running out of money.

They are doing non-GAAP to take away stock based compensation and such.  +0.16 is for
the investors, -0.23 is for the IRS.  If you are so inclined they have a section in
the stockhoder news letter explaining their non-gaap methods.


-- 
Chisolm
Republic of Texas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#447214

John Larkin wrote...
>
> I wonder what Twitter does to have expenses around a
> few billion a year. The free food and bean-bag chairs
> can't cost that much.

 Internet infrastructure for a billion bust users?
 Phone-system access fees?  International ditto?


-- 
 Thanks,
    - Win

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design

csiph-web