| ▲ | projektfu 9 hours ago |
| $16B is the top line gross revenue number. You don't count R&D as an expense per GAAP, so... They have claimed $8B in EBITDA, also leaving out the amortization of R&D costs. Those aren't audited numbers, as far as I know. |
|
| ▲ | infinitewars 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| That article claiming $8b profit is indeed mislabeling EBITDA as profit. EBITDA removes any recurring replenishment costs, the cost of building the satellite, launching the satellite, the user equipment manufacturing and returns, all ground infrastructure build and replacement, all employee stock compensation (not counted!), no advertising costs (and they've actually had to do a lot of that lately to scrounge customers that are remote enough that their network isn't too congested to serve), no taxes are counted (though they get out of that because they have no profit!). Not to mention payments servicing all their debt and Starship development. *they actually use "Adjusted EBITDA" which is even more nonstandard and means they define the accounting however they want! |
| |
| ▲ | grooker 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Right the commercial side never added up 90% of the valuation is about Golden Dome |
|
|
| ▲ | pnw 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Audited financials would be released with the S-1. But it's very unlikely that they are not audited given the amount of money they have raised. |
|
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Those aren't audited numbers, as far as I know SpaceX has been audited for over a decade. |
| |
|
| ▲ | scuff3d 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| No related to this conversation, but I just started reading some books on finance and I actually know what most of those terms mean now! Lol |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Good for you! It’s fun when you realize it’s a constructed language that also tends towards precision. While accounting is not my favorite, financial models as a whole are incredibly powerful reasoning tools. On par, for me, with engineering or physics based first-principles reasoning. | | |
| ▲ | instagraham 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Which financial models best describe reality in your opinion? I'd always wanted to view affairs from a different lens, though I often feel the people who think everything revolves around bond rates or inflation numbers can miss the social picture of why things happen. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Which financial models best describe reality in your opinion? The most-powerful ones for individuals are the micreconomic mechanisms. Understanding how leverage, tranching and moving risk (and reward) across stakeholders and time, work, for instance. The necessary mechanisms and tradeoffs one must make, as well as the ones one should. If you're looking for a formal model, it's the balance sheet. But not the accountant's. The financier's. Sources and uses, and uses and sources. Payments in, payments out. How do they balance over time; how do they change exposures to different layers of economic and legal control. The primitives of these models are transactions and people. When you look through them, they're defining human wants and ambitions, faults and fears, patience and mortality. |
|
| |
| ▲ | leosanchez 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Any recommendations ? | |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
