In the article, it states that the “loss” is an accounting loss attributed to stock compensation, not a cash flow loss. It states that they had positive operati

In the article, it states that the “loss” is an accounting loss attributed to stock compensation, not a cash flow loss. It states that they had positive operating revenues the year over year. If I pay you 1000 shares that I think are worth $1, I count it as a $1 expense, even though I’ve lost zero “dollars”. If that equity grows to be worth $10mm, at the end of the year I need to report a $10mm expense in stock compensation. This doesn’t mean I’m $10mm poorer, it means I’m 1000 shares poorer and the valuation has changed. You’ve already “paid” for the loss with the shares. The reason you report it in dollars is because one can theoretically sell those shares to obtain money to feed the business, so it’s important for investors to know if you’re burning through a lucrative pool of equity. It has no direct impact on cash liquidity, operating margin, or cash flow. I think many commenters in this thread missed that distinction. There’s a huge difference between reporting a loss and running out of money.