4 ms·
> Their revenue has quadrupled in just a few months Maybe, maybe not. We haven't seen that S-1 yet. All we have is the 5B in lifetime so far. PLUS - revenue qu
by hansmayer 4mo ago
> Their revenue has quadrupled in just a few months
Maybe, maybe not. We haven't seen that S-1 yet. All we have is the 5B in lifetime so far. PLUS - revenue quadrupled or not, it only matters if their costs did not expand at the same rate or more. Revenue is not profit.
- aspenmartin 4mo agoOK, so when S-1 comes out you will finally allow yourself to be wrong? Your prior is, a 1T company plans to IPO and their leader has been loudly committing an insane amount of fraud? I mean this of course is possible but that is quite the conspiracy. The scrutiny of an IPO would be a crazy thing to do if you were committing fraud at the scale you're suggesting. Revenue is not profit yet the discussion in this particular thread is about revenue.
- hansmayer 4mo ago> 1T company plans to IPO and their leader has been loudly committing an insane amount of fraud? Ever heard of Enron, Theranos, SBX ? They were all hiding in plain sight - who could've thought they were frauds?
- aspenmartin 4mo agoThat’s why I said it’s possible but it’s a very improbable and weird prior assumption to make
- hansmayer 4mo ago> weird prior assumption to make No, at this level of capital involved, and so much opacity around the company financials, it's a perfectly reasonable assumption.
- danielmarkbruce 4mo agoNo, it's not. It's a stupid thing to say. Perfectly stupid assumption. There are 1000s of multi billion $ revenue companies operating and as a % the number that are fraudulent is close to zero, especially those public or looking to go public. There is always the possibility, but it's extremely naive to think it's likely.