3 ms·
> 2/ Revenue is $2bn+ a year, how is this not successful? It's not successful because their expenses are $2.6 billion a year which exceeds the revenue of $2.2
by jasode 10y ago
> 2/ Revenue is $2bn+ a year, how is this not successful?
It's not successful because their expenses are $2.6 billion a year which exceeds the revenue of $2.2 billion collected.[1]
This means they lost $450 million. They have no profits. They've never had a profitable year. In short, if you spend more than you make, you're not financially successful.
Why do many people think companies like Twitter and Spotify (also $2 billion revenue and still losing money) are "successful" ?!? I'm guessing the confusion happens because observers don't understand the difference between revenue and profit.
[1]https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:TWTR&fstype=ii https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:TWTR&fstype=ii
- nickpsecurity 10y agoIs there a breakdown somewhere of where those costs are coming from and what they can probably knock out to hit profitable? It's only a few, hundred million over revenue. I mean, that's a big problem but I've seen rebounds from worse when better management came along.