I hope to see every big tech company that invested into this scam fall but alas they'll get bailed out

File: IMG_3709.jpg (492 KB, 1888x1888)

492 KB JPG

>>109411472
> SnailGODS win again

Zuck is just writing about people with average IQ. They must seem like super intelligent gods in his eyes.

>>109411472
91% is insane. But Meta wouldn't be in this shit if they didn't horribly mismanage instagram and facebook. Facebook is literally unusable AI scammer bot trash. Which sucks because nobody in my city uses anything but facebook

>>109412018
>build thing that makes you rich
>build another thing that turns your first thing into a piece of shit
What a moron.

>>109411472
our answer, AI chads?

File: kimi_spacex_meta.jpg (57 KB, 500x660)

57 KB JPG

>>109412065

Tech companies had insane free cash flow for decades and weren't doing anything with it, for example Apple did 850 billion dollars in stock buy backs

In the past few years they have started investing that money in R&D and infrastructure instead of hoarding it, doing random acquisitions, or giving it back to stockholders to invest elsewhere

revenue is still a more important number than cash flow

>>109411472
Its another episode of this retard who doesnt know what cashflow is

>>109412830
To clarify, 'cash flow' is the amount of cash flowing into the company that you aren't spending
it's usually bad to have a ton of cash flowing into your company that you aren't doing anything with

companies are priced around revenue not cash flow, because revenue has the potential to turn into a cash flow spigot whenever you want

>>109411595
a drop of 91% still means facebook has a positive cash flow. facebook wouldn't fail.

File: .png (329 KB, 750x500)

329 KB PNG

>>109412845
??
if you aren't a startup anymore and your cash flow is negative, you aren't a healthy company

>>109413230
Not really. If you have 1b in reserves and you're using it to build a project that has the potential to double your company revenue (in excess of spending all your profit) then you get negative cash flow, but if you succeed you end up being a much stronger company. In normal circumstances (i.e. you're not building out anything and not accumulating in preparation for a market downturn) you generally aim for cash flow neutrality, as the other anon implied.

>>109413230
Depends on the industry, but if what you're saying is true then zero dividend zero buyback stocks wouldn't be worth anything

>>109413287
i'm talking about operating cash flow. if operating your core business isn't profitable, you'll have a problem.

>>109413300
s&p 500 doesn't care about your industry. you need to be profitable to be included.

>>109412018
>nobody in my city uses anything but facebook
Sounds to me like they're doing great. They don't want you on there, you waste bandwidth and don't buy the stuff in the ads.

>>109413328
no

>>109413300
A stock doesn't require dividends or buybacks to have value and price action, it would be valued on the present value of the discounted sum of the corps future cash flows plus its current assets (which in metas case is tens of billions apparently)

The question is what the future cash flows will be. All we gotta know is if the zuck is a brilliant genius who's gonna 100x future profit or not.

>>109413287
>has the potential to double your company revenue
I have the potential to win the lottery. That doesn’t make it a smart business decision to dump all my money on lotto tickets.

>>109413443
What will you name your new financial theory anon :0

File: .png (298 KB, 600x539)

298 KB PNG

>>109413443
>That doesn’t make it a smart business decision to dump all my money on lotto tickets.
actually

>>109411472
Talk me out of signing up for zucc's fiber technician training program, bros.

>>109413312
You can't just change the definition of words. Use google to inform yourself.

>>109411472
>cash flow drops
AKA: they are choosing to spend some of their ungodly amount of profit

>>109415169
>fiber technician training program
???

>>109413287
explain why meta still has positive cash flow. are they stupid?

>>109415909
facebook literally did this. their 91% drop is in their non-gaap free cash flow. you should inform yourself and read their disclaimer:

https://investor.atmeta.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2026/Meta-Reports-Second-Quarter-2026-Results/default.aspx
>To supplement our condensed consolidated financial statements, which are prepared and presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (GAAP), we use the following non-GAAP financial measures: revenue excluding foreign exchange effect, advertising revenue excluding foreign exchange effect, and free cash flow. The presentation of these financial measures is not intended to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for, or superior to, financial information prepared and presented in accordance with GAAP. Investors are cautioned that there are material limitations associated with the use of non-GAAP financial measures as an analytical tool. In addition, these measures may be different from non-GAAP financial measures used by other companies, limiting their usefulness for comparison purposes. We compensate for these limitations by providing specific information regarding the GAAP amounts excluded from these non-GAAP financial measures.

meanwhile operating cash flow is gaap where every company has to use the same definition and facebook can't cheat.

>>109411595

Socalism works

>>109418051
I wasn't talking about facebook per se, I was responding to the retarded anon who doesn't understand words.

>>109418060
the entire us tech sector is state-run using some very flimsy fronts

>>109413300
Retained earnings aren't taxed.
Dividends are.

So most investors prefer to let firms build huge stockpiles rather than do dividends.
Yes, the Laffer curve is in full effect, if you cut capital gains tax you will *increase* tax revenue because firms wouldn't be able to justify no dividends any longer.
But Leftoids tend to be moronic and want to tax unrealized gains instead.
You could also just start taxing retained earnings directly, would be less idiotic than unrealized gains.

>>109417963
They are training people to install fiber for their new datacenters

>>109411595
they wont get bailed out. banks failing is a different matter entirely.

>>109418468
Dividend emission is untaxed and counts the same as an expense.
Dividend receipt can be taxed as little as 0% if it's long-term.

File: 1761788934549367.png (21 KB, 651x205)

21 KB PNG

>>109411472
>2 more weeks

File: file.png (102 KB, 852x622)

102 KB PNG

>>109418844

File: file.png (114 KB, 841x624)

114 KB PNG

>>109418844
>>109418918

>>109418844
Amazon well known for their outsized AI exposure.

>>109418793
Technically short term can be 0% also (e.g. if its within the standard deduction).
But that's not the point, the point is that, dividends create a potentially unwanted tax event, which is used to justify cash hoarding, and a preference for buybacks over dividends.
So many investors prefer tax-free growth in retained earnings accumulation.
But yes, perhaps I'm a bit hyperbolic that reducing capital gains would raise revenue, but the underlying point is still correct, just requires more restructuring, like outlawing buybacks, different tax category for dividends, direct taxes on retained earnings, etc.

>>109420445
The underlying point is still wrong but for a different reason. In the first incarnation, the implications you were making were only relevant in the event of a taxable event on the company side, which is irrelevant here. Otherwise, you think that company has more cash = company has more value, but that is only true on an unprofitable company and then again, only under a specific subset of circumstances (buffett's entire claim to wealth is based on buying a company below nav and forcing the owners to sell to redistribute to shareholders, demonstrating this).
In this incarnation, you forget that there is still neutral cash flow when cash is used for share buybacks, which is the ideal scenario to prop up share price without an investor-side taxable event.

>>109420578
>the implications you were making were only relevant in the event of a taxable event on the company side
No, I never said anything about taxable events on the company side.
Companies build cash stockpiles because they believe their stockholders want that, because the stockholders don't want to have taxable events like dividends.
Avoiding taxes alone is enough for many investors to justify war chests.

>Otherwise, you think that company has more cash = company has more value, but that is only true on an unprofitable company
Incorrect. Take Google or Apple for example, they have huge war chests even when profitable.
The tax evasion scheme via retained earnings is common among Big Tech.
Where it shows up in shareholder valuation is in Book Value.
When the company has a profit and doesn't do buybacks or dividends, it accumulates in the Book Value via retained earnings.

>>109421208
Companies do not build cash stockpiles because they believe their stockholders want that, moreover they don't guess what shareholders want. That is so out-of-whack preposterous I didn't even consider an adult could come up with that shit. Lay off the LSD. Your ideas about google and apple's cash flows and cash reserves are even more retarded.

>>109421292
Zero arguments, nice.
Apple's war chest is 100% to avoid taxes you dingus.

>>109411472
it's been declared a national security issue along with the tripled military budget. I think all these companies know it will fail, but they also know they will make tons of money off the failure.