5 ms·

Agreed that if you're misleading investors that's generally going to be fraud of some type of another. But presumably his investors already had his numbers, the

by trotsky 16y ago

Agreed that if you're misleading investors that's generally going to be fraud of some type of another. But presumably his investors already had his numbers, they aren't waiting for a blog post linked to by tech crunch to find out. It seems like you're blurring the line between a public company and a private company. Why use accounting tricks? This isn't a 10Q, it isn't certified, it wasn't prepared by an auditor. It also isn't his tax return, or testimony to the government. I also think you're overestimating your ability to back out rev numbers from headcount. I've worked at a similar sized company that booked $0 in rev, and I'm sure plenty of 1 person companies book more than that. My point really isn't about the numbers, it's about credibility. This guy got barred from the securities industry by the SEC for telling the public one thing when he believed the opposite.

akashs 16y ago
All I'm saying is you can't tell how accurate it is, but it doesn't sound like to me they are fudged. Companies play with numbers to make one set look favorable to investors, and another set look poor to the government at the same time so you avoid taxes. For all you know, that could be the number he reported to the government for his tax return. But there are laws saying you can't lie about it, especially if you have investors (public or private - linked a couple above). Tax evasion comes into play because even if you have two sets of books, those have to tie out at some point, and if you're lying, there's likely some issue you're running into with the IRS. I'm not estimating revenue. I'm saying ~4.8M rev - (45 ppl * ~80-100K avg all in comp) - operating costs checks out to around the break-even profit. Nothing more. Both numbers could be fudged - I don't know. Agreed with you that he has questionable credibility. And I'm also saying that that could certainly be happening here as well. But we have no way of knowing, even if we had the numbers in hand
PakG1 16y ago
>> But presumably his investors already had his numbers, they aren't waiting for a blog post linked to by tech crunch to find out. For clarification, from the OP's OP, TC didn't exactly have to do any investigative journalism to get this data. BI released it voluntarily themselves from the beginning. TC got their data from that post: "Well, we're a private company, and we've never disclosed any of that stuff, either. But I'm honestly not sure why. So we're going to try an experiment. We're going to disclose that stuff. Then we're going to see if something horrible happens to us. If it does, we'll probably never disclose that stuff again. If it doesn't, maybe we'll still never disclose that stuff again--because, you know, it's "confidential" and "competitive" and "we're private, so we don't have to disclose that stuff." But, in any event, here goes."

by trotsky 16y ago

akashs 16y ago

All I'm saying is you can't tell how accurate it is, but it doesn't sound like to me they are fudged. Companies play with numbers to make one set look favorable to investors, and another set look poor to the government at the same time so you avoid taxes. For all you know, that could be the number he reported to the government for his tax return. But there are laws saying you can't lie about it, especially if you have investors (public or private - linked a couple above). Tax evasion comes into play because even if you have two sets of books, those have to tie out at some point, and if you're lying, there's likely some issue you're running into with the IRS. I'm not estimating revenue. I'm saying ~4.8M rev - (45 ppl * ~80-100K avg all in comp) - operating costs checks out to around the break-even profit. Nothing more. Both numbers could be fudged - I don't know. Agreed with you that he has questionable credibility. And I'm also saying that that could certainly be happening here as well. But we have no way of knowing, even if we had the numbers in hand

PakG1 16y ago

>> But presumably his investors already had his numbers, they aren't waiting for a blog post linked to by tech crunch to find out. For clarification, from the OP's OP, TC didn't exactly have to do any investigative journalism to get this data. BI released it voluntarily themselves from the beginning. TC got their data from that post: "Well, we're a private company, and we've never disclosed any of that stuff, either. But I'm honestly not sure why. So we're going to try an experiment. We're going to disclose that stuff. Then we're going to see if something horrible happens to us. If it does, we'll probably never disclose that stuff again. If it doesn't, maybe we'll still never disclose that stuff again--because, you know, it's "confidential" and "competitive" and "we're private, so we don't have to disclose that stuff." But, in any event, here goes."