|
| ▲ | master_crab 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| No net revenue is still the top line number (just minus some things like allowances or some other artifact or exception). Profit is the bottom line. |
| |
| ▲ | derdi 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | But then what does it mean when the FT writes that that "revenue" number already accounts for the 15 billion losses? That the FT doesn't use these terms correctly either, and we can't really know what its reporting means? | | |
| ▲ | master_crab 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | That’s the correct usage. Revenue includes gains and losses. Profit will take that number and subtract out the operational costs (salaries, market data subs, etc). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | DoesntMatter22 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Not profit then at all is it? As I said |
| |
| ▲ | phil21 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | It’s trading profit. No one is counting their gains from a trade while including their rent into it. It’s a much easier to understand metric when you are discussing losses on a trade. No one is calculating losses including salaries. It means Jane Street is still highly profitable in trades this year despite making a bad bet. If they have overhead that eclipses that, that is an entirely different metric. |
|
