7 ms·
Both are non-cash expenses, so makes sense to consider financials without them when looking at GAAP vs. Non-GAAP. They're certainly operational charges, but som
by vikramhaer 12y ago
Both are non-cash expenses, so makes sense to consider financials without them when looking at GAAP vs. Non-GAAP. They're certainly operational charges, but somewhat distort P&L.
- thegenius 12y agoI'm not even sure what you mean. They come out of shareholder equity, and all public companies use accrual and not cash-basis accounting. It makes zero sense to strip out those operational charges unless you want to appear profitable for some short-term benefit. I realize companies do this kind of crap. It absolutely does not make it right, and the folly of the stock market is just that: believing just because somebody said or did something that it is also correct, or that something is OK because it looks official on a SEC document.
- vikramhaer 12y agoNot saying I disagree. I don't think people should be looking at GAAP vs. Non-GAAP if they don't understand that one vs. the other doesn't make the company more or less profitable. My point is it helps better understand the company from an operational perspective when very high SBC or D&A can significantly distort actual expenses.
- thegenius 12y agoMy point to you is that SBC and D&A are actual expenses in every way imaginable. Just because Twitter says not doesn't make it so.