As a long time FT subscriber, I'm happy you're using them as a source. The Zitron details were more useful to me though.

And none of my points have anything to do with the once off losses. I'm observing that a bunch of costs appear to be scaling with revenue or above revenue, which does not bode well for future profitability.

Also, as an aside, stripping out equity grants is really misleading for a private, high growth tech company.

▲

simianwords 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The losses are scaling with revenue because increase in (expected) revenue increases valuation which increases compensation.

Once expectation stabilises these losses won’t happen because the valuation will remain constant. A lot of people were paid really high equity grants simply because they started low. You can’t expect them to be paid the same amount each time.

FT themselves point this out and who you believe is up to you.

	▲	disgruntledphd2 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> The losses are scaling with revenue because increase in (expected) revenue increases valuation which increases compensation. My original point around equity is that if you pay a substantial fraction of comp in this form, then leaving it out of expenses is pretty bizarre. Is it your contention that the equity grants are the cause of their increasing losses? I believe that this is probably not true at all, it's more likely to be S&M (salespeople scale as N not log(N) like engineering/product) particularly given that the product requires tuning for lots of companies (hence all the FDE hires). More generally, the training costs seem to be increasing which is bad for their future profitability.