3 ms·

Here is the "random" that wrote the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Cohan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Cohan

by mike_d 4y ago

danielmarkbruce 4y ago
You can trust this random, or just read the filings for yourself. The nice thing about public companies is you can stop listening to pundits and just get the info yourself.
- mike_d 4y ago
  But by your logic can we really trust the SEC? That is just a bunch of randoms that work for the government, man. Why not go directly to the document published directly on Coinbase's investor website that I mentioned in my first comment? https://s27.q4cdn.com/397450999/files/doc_financials/2022/q1/Coinbase-Q122-Shareholder-Letter.pdf https://s27.q4cdn.com/397450999/files/doc_financials/2022/q1... (Hint: page 11, "Total expenses" has been north of $1.5b for the last two quarters)
  - danielmarkbruce 4y ago
    The SEC don't make the filings. The company sends them to the SEC, who just hosts them... Ok, in your link..."expenses" on page 11 doesn't include revenue.... so no, that's not burn. You want to add the money coming in to the money going out to calculate burn. Look at pages 20 onwards. Same data they send the SEC. You have revenue and expenses in an income statement. But, many of the expenses are non-cash. And many balance sheet changes (like receivables, inventory etc) affect cash but not the income statement. So, if you want to understand the burn rate the easiest place to go is the cashflow statement. That's page 22. Look about 2/3 way down and you'll see "net cash (used in) provided by operating activities". It's worth investing a few hours to understand basic accounting if you want to understand the basics of companies. Lots of info at your fingertips if you can be bothered. You'll even be able to see where random forbes contributors go wrong.
    - mike_d 4y ago
      The dark money illuminati might have conspired with the SEC to modify the documents, therefor they are just papers from randoms and can't be trusted. This is the whole you dig yourself into when you start attacking sources rather than taking a step back and realizing you might be arguing on the wrong side of the facts. The burn rate is the amount of cash the company is spending per month. It does get murky post revenue, but is generally understood to be the rate at which a company is spending - I understand it might be confusing to someone who hasn't been in the trenches of startups and investing so I'll give you a pass on that. Close to $600 million a month going out the door is stupid high compared to what they actually do. The executive leadership agrees with me and is cutting high costs.
      - danielmarkbruce 4y ago
        The SEC docs and the docs posted to a company's investor relations page always seem to match... so unless the company and it's auditors are in on it (rare), unlikely. An accounting class, it's worth it. Burn is practically synonymous with operating cashflow (at least when negative..) and is always inclusive of revenue, never inclusive of non-cash charges (like options/equity comp). Pointing out operating expenses as though it's burn suggests a lack of accounting basics. What's next? Google is burning $70 bill pa? Plus, loads of people on HN have either been involved in startups, or investing, or both. It's pretty silly to assume they haven't.

Here is the "random" that wrote the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Cohan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Cohan

by mike_d 4y ago

Here is the "random" that wrote the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Cohan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Cohan

danielmarkbruce 4y ago

You can trust this random, or just read the filings for yourself. The nice thing about public companies is you can stop listening to pundits and just get the info yourself.

mike_d 4y ago
But by your logic can we really trust the SEC? That is just a bunch of randoms that work for the government, man. Why not go directly to the document published directly on Coinbase's investor website that I mentioned in my first comment? https://s27.q4cdn.com/397450999/files/doc_financials/2022/q1/Coinbase-Q122-Shareholder-Letter.pdf https://s27.q4cdn.com/397450999/files/doc_financials/2022/q1... (Hint: page 11, "Total expenses" has been north of $1.5b for the last two quarters)
- danielmarkbruce 4y ago
  The SEC don't make the filings. The company sends them to the SEC, who just hosts them... Ok, in your link..."expenses" on page 11 doesn't include revenue.... so no, that's not burn. You want to add the money coming in to the money going out to calculate burn. Look at pages 20 onwards. Same data they send the SEC. You have revenue and expenses in an income statement. But, many of the expenses are non-cash. And many balance sheet changes (like receivables, inventory etc) affect cash but not the income statement. So, if you want to understand the burn rate the easiest place to go is the cashflow statement. That's page 22. Look about 2/3 way down and you'll see "net cash (used in) provided by operating activities". It's worth investing a few hours to understand basic accounting if you want to understand the basics of companies. Lots of info at your fingertips if you can be bothered. You'll even be able to see where random forbes contributors go wrong.
  - mike_d 4y ago
    The dark money illuminati might have conspired with the SEC to modify the documents, therefor they are just papers from randoms and can't be trusted. This is the whole you dig yourself into when you start attacking sources rather than taking a step back and realizing you might be arguing on the wrong side of the facts. The burn rate is the amount of cash the company is spending per month. It does get murky post revenue, but is generally understood to be the rate at which a company is spending - I understand it might be confusing to someone who hasn't been in the trenches of startups and investing so I'll give you a pass on that. Close to $600 million a month going out the door is stupid high compared to what they actually do. The executive leadership agrees with me and is cutting high costs.
    - danielmarkbruce 4y ago
      The SEC docs and the docs posted to a company's investor relations page always seem to match... so unless the company and it's auditors are in on it (rare), unlikely. An accounting class, it's worth it. Burn is practically synonymous with operating cashflow (at least when negative..) and is always inclusive of revenue, never inclusive of non-cash charges (like options/equity comp). Pointing out operating expenses as though it's burn suggests a lack of accounting basics. What's next? Google is burning $70 bill pa? Plus, loads of people on HN have either been involved in startups, or investing, or both. It's pretty silly to assume they haven't.