4 ms·

Am I reading this right: have they lost 3bn in the last 9 months?

JonFish85 9y ago
The footnote kind of explains this: "Net loss for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 includes $2.5 billion of stock-based compensation expense, primarily due to the recognition of expense related to RSUs with a performance condition satisfied on the effectiveness of the registration statement for our initial public offering." I believe the vast majority of that was due to issuing stock to Evan Spiegel for successfully executing the IPO at given metrics.
- rrhd 9y ago
  Totally deserves billions for running a money losing operation thats getting eaten alive by the competition.
hkmurakami 9y ago
iirc they handed out a very large amount of equity compensation around the time of IPO, which is recorded as an expense on the books.
nl 9y ago
Sort-of, but it's a once-off: Net loss for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 includes $2.5 billion of stock-based compensation expense, primarily due to the recognition of expense related to RSUs with a performance condition satisfied on the effectiveness of the registration statement for our initial public offering.
- addicted 9y ago
  Still leaves ~600mm in losses. Which is still greater than the ~350mm in losses last year. The idea that money given to employees as equity is not "real money" is toxic.
  - chipgap98 9y ago
    Why? Don't most companies separate out their stock based compensation expenses?
    - nl 9y ago
      Of course they do. And most separate out special expenses too.
  - nl 9y ago
    The idea that money given to employees as equity is not "real money" is toxic. Stock-based compensation isn't the same as cash. It has both costs and benefits, but saying it is "toxic" seems overreach.
    - rrdharan 9y ago
      I'm not the person who wrote that but I think you're misinterpreting the statement. I believe user addicted was trying to say is that companies are attempting to treat a large portion of compensation paid out to employees as somehow not material or meaningful, and that practice is toxic.
      - addicted 9y ago
        Yes that is exactly what I was trying to convey. They are obviously not the same thing (as the comment about trying to pay rent, for example, tries to point out). But at the same time, a lot of companies try to pass them off as not meaningful which I don't think is helpful even if toxic may be too strong a term. (SNAP's figures do that literally, giving us NM for change % numbees affected by the stock compensation).
  - WillPostForFood 9y ago
    Speaking as someone who has received equity several times, it is not real money.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago

The footnote kind of explains this: "Net loss for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 includes $2.5 billion of stock-based compensation expense, primarily due to the recognition of expense related to RSUs with a performance condition satisfied on the effectiveness of the registration statement for our initial public offering." I believe the vast majority of that was due to issuing stock to Evan Spiegel for successfully executing the IPO at given metrics.

rrhd 9y ago
Totally deserves billions for running a money losing operation thats getting eaten alive by the competition.

hkmurakami 9y ago

iirc they handed out a very large amount of equity compensation around the time of IPO, which is recorded as an expense on the books.

nl 9y ago

Sort-of, but it's a once-off: Net loss for the nine months ended September 30, 2017 includes $2.5 billion of stock-based compensation expense, primarily due to the recognition of expense related to RSUs with a performance condition satisfied on the effectiveness of the registration statement for our initial public offering.

addicted 9y ago
Still leaves ~600mm in losses. Which is still greater than the ~350mm in losses last year. The idea that money given to employees as equity is not "real money" is toxic.
- chipgap98 9y ago
  Why? Don't most companies separate out their stock based compensation expenses?
  - nl 9y ago
    Of course they do. And most separate out special expenses too.
- nl 9y ago
  The idea that money given to employees as equity is not "real money" is toxic. Stock-based compensation isn't the same as cash. It has both costs and benefits, but saying it is "toxic" seems overreach.
  - rrdharan 9y ago
    I'm not the person who wrote that but I think you're misinterpreting the statement. I believe user addicted was trying to say is that companies are attempting to treat a large portion of compensation paid out to employees as somehow not material or meaningful, and that practice is toxic.
    - addicted 9y ago
      Yes that is exactly what I was trying to convey. They are obviously not the same thing (as the comment about trying to pay rent, for example, tries to point out). But at the same time, a lot of companies try to pass them off as not meaningful which I don't think is helpful even if toxic may be too strong a term. (SNAP's figures do that literally, giving us NM for change % numbees affected by the stock compensation).
- WillPostForFood 9y ago
  Speaking as someone who has received equity several times, it is not real money.
- dragonwriter 9y ago