4 ms·
It's slightly better than operating cashflow neutral. It's growing at a very healthy rate. It's definitely sustainable. The debate is around is it worth $5 bil
by danielmarkbruce 3y ago
It's slightly better than operating cashflow neutral. It's growing at a very healthy rate. It's definitely sustainable.
The debate is around is it worth $5 billion or $50 billion. It's not as easy as one might think to figure which.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago> slightly better than operating cashflow neutral Only because they are issuing massive amounts of stock (IIRC ~15% per year) to pay their employees and not doing any buybacks. How sustainable is that? > It's growing at a very healthy rate The problem is that it’s not. YoY growth they reported yesterday was -2% and they are also guiding for negative growth next year.
- danielmarkbruce 3y agoSheesh, I haven't watched closely for a couple qtrs and only saw the headline. You are right.
- brutus1213 3y agoCan you explain the "issuing stock to pay people"? 15% per year sounds quite a bit to me .. is this the norm in Silicon Valley? I presume this in the 10K?
- danielmarkbruce 3y agoA good portion of compensation is in stock. There is nothing wrong with it per se. It shows up on the income statement as an expense - all good. But then when people quote "operating cashflow" the company has added back that expense because it wasn't in cash. So the quoted operating cashflow (which in theory should be "real") becomes more fake from an economic viewpoint. It's not bad, you just have to be aware of it. It's in the k - right there in the income statement (the opex lines will all have some % which is equity) and cashflow statement (the operating cashflow calc explicitly has a line for it).