Why are there now so many huge business that don't make any money?

Soldato
Joined
7 Nov 2007
Posts
6,815
Location
Required
Thing is, the free version of Spotify doesn't even let you choose a song, only a playlist (at least on mobile), so it's actually better just to listen to internet radio, at least for me.

Likewise, the local taxi firms all share an app now that appears to have copied Uber.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,747
What if their motive isn't money? we keep hearing hysteria about Russia using social media to meddle with elections and take over the world but it's probably beyond most peoples imagination that corporations might be built by people who already have money with that goal in mind. Imagine a bunch of wealthy people akin to the mafia getting together in secret meetings in hotels with prominent politicians who they have blackmailed via their invasive social media spying apps with camera, microphone and private message access. They might call it the Build a berg or something.

Ever since Brexit happened and Trump got elected we've been hearing Russia this and Russia that all the while social media companies have been restructuring to influence elections even more aggressively under the guise of protecting them, maybe Russia is all just a distraction or maybe they just don't like a competitor muscling in on their turf?

In a post national world you have post national enemies and wars aren't faught with conventional arms, some corporations are bigger and more powerful today than countries. Food for thought.

I really don’t understand you anymore.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,999
Location
Just to the left of my PC
Creative accounting to make profit look worse :confused:. New one on me :p, not saying that means it doesn't happen!

It's not a new one. The amount of profit made has a significant effect on taxation, so there is a clear financial motive for creative accounting to make profit look worse than it is. There's also creative accounting to move profit from one company to another for tax avoidance/evasion and that could result in one company making no apparent profit. It happens.

I think more common motives are power and expected future profit, though. If you buy into a loss-making company for £x and 10 years later the company is dominant and that share is worth £50x that's a hell of a profit for you. If you buy into a company for £x and that company becomes powerful enough to influence national and international politics, that's a lot of power bought for relatively little money.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Jun 2013
Posts
4,372
well what about football clubs? I keep hearing of clubs that are tens of millions in debt, how come the debtors have never foreclosed (if that's the right term) on them? we had this debate at work, and ticket/merch sales were brought up, but still - they're obviously not enough to make a difference or the club would be in profit. i'm pretty sure if I spent year after year declaring pro-rata losses like the clubs do i'd have lost my house, car and everything else.
 
Caporegime
Joined
21 Jun 2006
Posts
38,372
well what about football clubs? I keep hearing of clubs that are tens of millions in debt, how come the debtors have never foreclosed (if that's the right term) on them? we had this debate at work, and ticket/merch sales were brought up, but still - they're obviously not enough to make a difference or the club would be in profit. i'm pretty sure if I spent year after year declaring pro-rata losses like the clubs do i'd have lost my house, car and everything else.

because the club has assets worth more than the debt itself.

it can also if need be sell the rights to a lot of stuff it owns to generate money if need be.

they can also issue shares or ask supporters for donations, etc.
 
Soldato
Joined
5 Mar 2010
Posts
12,346
because the club has assets worth more than the debt itself.

it can also if need be sell the rights to a lot of stuff it owns to generate money if need be.

they can also issue shares or ask supporters for donations, etc.

Or in the case of some of the bug clubs, the owners just pump more money in.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Jun 2013
Posts
4,372
because the club has assets worth more than the debt itself.

it can also if need be sell the rights to a lot of stuff it owns to generate money if need be.

they can also issue shares or ask supporters for donations, etc.
and how are those assets going to cover a debt? can't give a debtor a footballer, can you? can't seemingly force a club to sell someone to liquidate those assets to cover a debt.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Jul 2011
Posts
4,418
Location
Cambridgeshire
well what about football clubs? I keep hearing of clubs that are tens of millions in debt, how come the debtors have never foreclosed (if that's the right term) on them? we had this debate at work, and ticket/merch sales were brought up, but still - they're obviously not enough to make a difference or the club would be in profit. i'm pretty sure if I spent year after year declaring pro-rata losses like the clubs do i'd have lost my house, car and everything else.

You've got to ask what a creditor has to gain from forcing a club to wind up. If your debt it say 5mil, and you have assets worth 2.5mil then the questions the creditors need to ask themselves is this:

1. Are they currently making repayments?
2. If they're not what is the likelihood that they will start to?
3. What is the risk to me of starting a winding up petition? What will my return on the debt owed be?
4. Are there other routes that will allow me to get more of my money back?

In the above example creditors are looking at a maximum of 50% return on debt depending on the nature of the other creditors.

Nine times out of ten forcing a company into bankruptcy or seeking the sale of assets is as detrimental to the creditors as it is to the club/business, for the very reason that it impacts their ability to make money to repay the debt. Creditors will only use the nuclear option to protect their investment, in cases when it looks like the situation is going to get significantly worse to the point where they might get nothing in the end.

For a lot of football clubs for instance it's shareholders/owner goodwill keeping them afloat, or persistent refinancing, which is pretty much the same thing in a lot of cases.
 
Soldato
Joined
25 Sep 2009
Posts
9,628
Location
Billericay, UK
Is “creative accounting” a factor?
Sometimes it is and tech companies are notorious for it. If you read the financial results from AMD, Intel or Nvidia etc you will notice they will report a profit as GAAP and NON GAAP (out of the two GAAP profit is a more rigorous test of companies performance) with non GAAP it allows companies to report things differently from how they are reported under GAAP. A popular trend with Facebook, Twitter etc is to report stock based compensation on their balance sheet instead of their P&L statement increasing profits. Tbh though if you trade publicly investors can see right through what your doing so it's not like it's hidden or companies try to hide it.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Sep 2003
Posts
3,407
Location
US of A
Profit gets taxed. If companies make losses, they avod paying tax on profit plus usually get to offset those losses in subsequent years. It is one of the reasons why Amazon and Uber have grown so big yet paid little to no tax on their "profit".
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
9,508
Very few startups make money for many years. Some topics have been covered already

- They are trying to corner a market and play the long game. New companies are venture capitalist backed and go to back to these VC's for additional funding.
- They are reinvesting the money back into the company instead of declaring a profit. This avoids tax. See Amazon - they spent years with no profit because they were making AWS. Now looking at profits Amazon is a cloud provider with a gift shop on the side.
- Why declare a profit? If you're not paying dividends it's not really going to affect your stock price. Analysts know your revenue, capabilities and if you *can* make a profit or not.

Sometimes it is and tech companies are notorious for it. If you read the financial results from AMD, Intel or Nvidia etc you will notice they will report a profit as GAAP and NON GAAP (out of the two GAAP profit is a more rigorous test of companies performance) with non GAAP it allows companies to report things differently from how they are reported under GAAP. A popular trend with Facebook, Twitter etc is to report stock based compensation on their balance sheet instead of their P&L statement increasing profits. Tbh though if you trade publicly investors can see right through what your doing so it's not like it's hidden or companies try to hide it.

Also non GAAP is a way for a company to show their performance but taking away factors that otherwise wouldn't be there. For example, if a company has an employee stock purchase plan and the stock rockets that can be quite a lot of money. They have to factor in and it may not be a regular event 'We'd be profitable apart from this one time cost which is in plain sight'.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
8 Sep 2006
Posts
1,741
Expected growth and returns in future. I think this paragraph sums it up best for me:

https://www.economist.com/business/2017/02/23/are-technology-firms-madly-overvalued

The third test is whether there is a fallacy of composition. In a bubble the bullish claims of individual companies aren’t plausible once you add them all up. In the dotcom era the market-share targets of internet-service providers added up to well over 100%. In the subprime crisis every bank claimed that it had offloaded its risks onto other banks. The technology industry is less vulnerable to criticism on this front. The aggregate profits of the top five tech firms are expected to rise from 6% of American corporate earnings last year, to 10% by 2025: bold, but not implausible. Managers are not anticipating the same profit stream twice. For example, Facebook is not expected to become a force in search, while Google is not expected to conquer social media.

20170225_WBC880.png


Although from 2017 you can see in the picture here, that companies have huge expectations of future growth and profits, this is what investors are expecting when putting money into unprofitable businesses. As in the article itself and the quote above it only becomes an issue when everybody is claiming that massive growth will happen to everybody in the market (i believe a few of these companies on the chart have already encountered difficulties). I think more recently (last year) there was an article about advertising revenue and the expectations of that being a little unreasonable, i believe it was this article:

https://www.economist.com/business/...oesnt-ad-up-about-americas-advertising-market
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Mar 2008
Posts
32,747
I think everyone saw the success of this with amazon and decided it was a viable alternative to conventional methods.

I feel amazon basically never really left ‘startup’ mode until recently, when their western market was mostly captive.
 
Back
Top Bottom