• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michele Bachmann announces presidential campaign

Right. "Just because they are losing money, doesn't mean they are not profitable"

It depends how we are defining profit. Bottom line reporting on 10Ks doesn't reveal the truth. That's what the cash flow statement is for as it backs out many of the reserves, stock buy backs and other methods of reducing income. I already detailed several ways a company can report a net loss but still be profitable. You have not refuted a single one yet.

I've really enjoyed watching the way economic illiterates have tried every way they can to make this sentence true for them.

I've really enjoyed watching the way economic illiterates try to cast those who have demonstrated superior knowledge as being wrong while utterly and completely failing to refute a single argument presented as to why a company who reports a net loss for GAAP can actually be profitable while offering no arguments themselves.

Are you too cowardly to answer my stock buyback question?

I'm not sure how you think sniping while deliberately avoiding the hard questions makes you right.

At this point, I seriously doubt you know what a 10K is. Much less any of the terms being used here. You have demonstrated no understanding of the topic at all.
 
But that doesn't mean the company is actually losing money. Read the past few pages how companies can easily and legally turn a GAAP profit into a GAAP loss. Shewolf is not wrong, but she's not utilizing the strongest argument out there to prove her point.

Answer me this.

A corporation on 12/30/2011 buys back $50 million in stock. It previously had a pre-tax income of $25 million. Have they really lost money in the sense of on going operations?

That question is over their head... lol
 
Right. "Just because they are losing money, doesn't mean they are not profitable"...

I've really enjoyed watching the way economic illiterates have tried every way they can to make this sentence true for them.

:beatdeadhorse

Economic illiterates.... you're still going to argue you know more but can't demonstrate that you do? You haven't even tried to demonstrate why a loss means zero profit. Keep repeating it over and over again, if anything you just demonstrate over and over again that your confused about the terms profit and loss.
 
It depends how we are defining profit. Bottom line reporting on 10Ks doesn't reveal the truth. That's what the cash flow statement is for as it backs out many of the reserves, stock buy backs and other methods of reducing income. I already detailed several ways a company can report a net loss but still be profitable. You have not refuted a single one yet.



I've really enjoyed watching the way economic illiterates try to cast those who have demonstrated superior knowledge as being wrong while utterly and completely failing to refute a single argument presented as to why a company who reports a net loss for GAAP can actually be profitable while offering no arguments themselves.

Are you too cowardly to answer my stock buyback question?

I'm not sure how you think sniping while deliberately avoiding the hard questions makes you right.

At this point, I seriously doubt you know what a 10K is. Much less any of the terms being used here. You have demonstrated no understanding of the topic at all.

You've demonstrated the inability to stay on topic. So let me see you do it, bet you can't.
 
You've demonstrated the inability to stay on topic. So let me see you do it, bet you can't.

Fail. The topic had long changed away from the OP. RTFT seriously.

What you've demonstrated is that you know no low in refusing to get any hit on me no matter how pathetic and low you have to stoop.

I find it hilarious how you are blaming me for changing the subject when I clearly came in well after the thread topic has been changed. That's really pathetic. Even for this place.
 
Last edited:
:beatdeadhorse

Economic illiterates.... you're still going to argue you know more but can't demonstrate that you do? You haven't even tried to demonstrate why a loss means zero profit. Keep repeating it over and over again, if anything you just demonstrate over and over again that your confused about the terms profit and loss.

I suspect Grant is another user who doesn't like me for some reason or other and knows he cannot actually win an argument against me. I have this hate club. American's in it. His recent post is hilarious blaming me for not staying on topic when the topic clearly does not reflect the OP nor has reflected the OP in many pages. This group will stoop to ridiculous levels just to have a mere possibility of getting a hit on me. It's kind of sad the level of rage that drives these people.
 
I suspect Grant is another user who doesn't like me for some reason or other.

I seldom give your posts serious notice (the name you've chosen is the probable reason) and only did this time because i noticed my name mentioned.

I neither like you or dislike you. You mean nothing to me one way or the other.

You can now relax.
 
I suspect Grant is another user who doesn't like me for some reason or other and knows he cannot actually win an argument against me. I have this hate club. American's in it.
Oh what the heck. You might as well add me too. I don't like you either.
 
I seldom give your posts serious notice (the name you've chosen is the probable reason) and only did this time because i noticed my name mentioned.

So not only did you jump in on the wrong side, but you demonstrated massive ignorance and massive arrogance while outright refusing to actually prove why Shewolf or I were wrong.

I neither like you or dislike you. You mean nothing to me one way or the other.

You can now relax.

RTFT next time.
 
Oh what the heck. You might as well add me too. I don't like you either.

I don't give a ****. I just dislike people who snipe or are arrogant that refuse to address posts they call wrong. Which is why I am treating Grant like he's subhuman.

Shewolf is not wrong. She just isn't using the best argument out there. I noticed none of you actually addressed what she wrote. Much less my own arguments backing her up.
 
What does RTRF stand for?
 
Answers.com - Can a business earn a gross profit but incur a net loss


Do some research, ask other people who work in accounting, finance, economics, executive management, etc. We aren't distorting facts or digging deep to support our statements. You guys are extremely ill informed... I honestly find it it shocking, and feel it's not right that people in the same country as me cling to such ignorance.
 
Answers.com - Can a business earn a gross profit but incur a net loss

Do some research, ask other people who work in accounting, finance, economics, executive management, etc. We aren't distorting facts or digging deep to support our statements. You guys are extremely ill informed... I honestly find it it shocking, and feel it's not right that people in the same country as me cling to such ignorance.

Who was talking about "Gross Profit"? I am an accountant BTW.
 
Who was talking about "Gross Profit"? I am an accountant BTW.

Join the club. Shewolf isn't wrong though. A company can be making a profit but report a loss. Back out transactions such as overly generous reserve accounts and stock buy backs and a company that reports a loss now can have a tidy profit. Furthermore, GAAP requires recognizing losses that are determinable in both amount and time. So even if the company actually hasn't incurred it, it reports the loss. If that loss is sufficently large enough to wipe out a profit, then it reports a net loss even if for the year that outflow hasn't been paid and they actually made money. There are plenty of ways Shewolf isn't wrong. She just didn't use the strongest arguments out there.

Furthermore:
Having revenue != making profits.

Is wrong. A company can pull in $500 million in revenue but have $600 million in costs. Revenue =/= Profit.
 
Join the club. Shewolf isn't wrong though. A company can be making a profit but report a loss. Back out transactions such as overly generous reserve accounts and stock buy backs and a company that reports a loss now can have a tidy profit. Furthermore, GAAP requires recognizing losses that are determinable in both amount and time. So even if the company actually hasn't incurred it, it reports the loss. If that loss is sufficently large enough to wipe out a profit, then it reports a net loss even if for the year that outflow hasn't been paid and they actually made money. There are plenty of ways Shewolf isn't wrong. She just didn't use the strongest arguments out there.

Furthermore:
Is wrong. A company can pull in $500 million in revenue but have $600 million in costs. Revenue =/= Profit.

The reason this is absurd is that by this standard, almost ALL manufacturing jobs are "making a profit" because no one would sell something for less than its cost of goods sold. Turning a Gross Profit is meaningless and the easiest thing to do in business.
 
The reason this is absurd is that by this standard, almost ALL manufacturing jobs are "making a profit" because no one would sell something for less than its cost of goods sold. Turning a Gross Profit is meaningless and the easiest thing to do in business.

A manufacturing company could be making large amounts of profit before reserves, one time expenses and stock buy backs. None of which actually affect their "real" profit but are all able to turn a profit into a reportable net loss. And Shewolf was not talking only about gross profit.

Furthermore, cost of goods sold is merely one cost. Non-UNICAP overhead, adminstrative and general sales have the potential to reduce income. Not to mention actual warranty costs, bad debt expenses and a whole host of non-COGS items. And let's not forget backtaxes which are a cost and are somewhat unrelated to the period's revenues. If we really want to go into this in depth, UNICAP alone could actually render the cash basis of a company unprofitable as the capitalized costs are still be incurred but not be recouped in the period of sales.

Would I be correct to assume you just started introductory accounting in college?
 
Back
Top Bottom