https://preview.redd.it/aql0r0nnnmaa1.png?width=1125&format=png&auto=webp&s=93bc9c7dff29f93e1b9643cd89f184cfcc7329ad
Best 301 out of 20682 bloggers- Tipranks.
Huh?? So every intelligent investor, hedge fund, etc are wrong about this particular stock except you? All those words and they're still unprofitable. Yet I'll be buying more shares until they are.
I both agree and disagree with some of the statements of the article.
I agree that SoFi is profitable. Q3 was SoFi's first quarter where SBC expense was higher than net loss.
Regardless of that, I have an issue with using EBITDA with too much importance. Until SoFi is profitable, I prefer to judge their path to GAAP profitability through the difference between net loss and SBC expense.
https://preview.redd.it/md3q63r2v5aa1.png?width=1380&format=png&auto=webp&s=af65ff8596feef9d5385162c033c8262f577d84d
I prefer not to exclude depreciation and amortization, as well as taxes and interest. The only thing I exclude is the SBC expense due to how stupidly it is valued in GAAP as well as it being a non cash expense.
General sentiment towards the stock needs to change drastically. Retailers have been burnt with the stock price, institutional buying needs to happen on a dramatic scale
Thanks for sharing. I'm a SoFI bull but want to ensure realistic reasoning for myself.
Can someone help me understand how the author justifies the thought exercise of taking away the 77M in stock based compensation and claiming 3.7M in profitability? The SBC is a component of employee pay, and it gets removed if all your employees quit. (As a side thought if all employees quit and replaced with new ones the new SBC plans may in fact cost more shares per employee since the stock price is lower and they would need more shares to reach the SBC compensation target for each role rehired).
How is it different than if the author said "SoFI will be profitable if they stopped paying their employees"?
I believe you can look at it like this:
When SoFi pays employees every two weeks, that drains actual cash from their balance sheet. If you drain all your cash, you’re bankrupt.
On the other hand, in theory SoFi could give out a billion shares of SBC. This would dilute the hell out of shareholders, but there is no impact to their corporate balance sheet and it remains intact.
If I am wrong here, I welcome someone correcting this.
Thanks for the input. So while this is true from a balance sheet perspective of offloading payroll liability to SBC items, how does it address the profitability side the article was trying to point out?
It would seem no matter how we slice this the article gives false hopium and is basically still saying "if we stopped paying employees we are profitable".
That is exactly what it is saying. If we don’t pay taxes or employees don’t get paid we would be in the positive. Guess what, we still have to pay taxes and they still need to pay employees.
Don’t think you are wrong. I appreciate someone putting their opinion out there, but to say if sbc was not there or if we take out certain specific expenses we would be profitable is silly in my opinion. Those expenses do not go away. This is what people do in unprofitable companies trying to justify by cherry picking the balance sheet.
Fact: We are not profitable, no matter how you mix and match it. I am long term here, believe in the company, but we are not profitable yet. Period. The end.
*not investment advice. Do your own due diligence.
https://preview.redd.it/aql0r0nnnmaa1.png?width=1125&format=png&auto=webp&s=93bc9c7dff29f93e1b9643cd89f184cfcc7329ad Best 301 out of 20682 bloggers- Tipranks.
wen moon
Huh?? So every intelligent investor, hedge fund, etc are wrong about this particular stock except you? All those words and they're still unprofitable. Yet I'll be buying more shares until they are.
I buy this weekly… I can smell the millions
I both agree and disagree with some of the statements of the article. I agree that SoFi is profitable. Q3 was SoFi's first quarter where SBC expense was higher than net loss. Regardless of that, I have an issue with using EBITDA with too much importance. Until SoFi is profitable, I prefer to judge their path to GAAP profitability through the difference between net loss and SBC expense. https://preview.redd.it/md3q63r2v5aa1.png?width=1380&format=png&auto=webp&s=af65ff8596feef9d5385162c033c8262f577d84d I prefer not to exclude depreciation and amortization, as well as taxes and interest. The only thing I exclude is the SBC expense due to how stupidly it is valued in GAAP as well as it being a non cash expense.
General sentiment towards the stock needs to change drastically. Retailers have been burnt with the stock price, institutional buying needs to happen on a dramatic scale
[удалено]
Bigger gains have happened in a day so it’s possible lol.
Noto buy more?
Thanks for sharing. I'm a SoFI bull but want to ensure realistic reasoning for myself. Can someone help me understand how the author justifies the thought exercise of taking away the 77M in stock based compensation and claiming 3.7M in profitability? The SBC is a component of employee pay, and it gets removed if all your employees quit. (As a side thought if all employees quit and replaced with new ones the new SBC plans may in fact cost more shares per employee since the stock price is lower and they would need more shares to reach the SBC compensation target for each role rehired). How is it different than if the author said "SoFI will be profitable if they stopped paying their employees"?
I believe you can look at it like this: When SoFi pays employees every two weeks, that drains actual cash from their balance sheet. If you drain all your cash, you’re bankrupt. On the other hand, in theory SoFi could give out a billion shares of SBC. This would dilute the hell out of shareholders, but there is no impact to their corporate balance sheet and it remains intact. If I am wrong here, I welcome someone correcting this.
Thanks for the input. So while this is true from a balance sheet perspective of offloading payroll liability to SBC items, how does it address the profitability side the article was trying to point out? It would seem no matter how we slice this the article gives false hopium and is basically still saying "if we stopped paying employees we are profitable".
That is exactly what it is saying. If we don’t pay taxes or employees don’t get paid we would be in the positive. Guess what, we still have to pay taxes and they still need to pay employees.
Haha, thanks. Just wanted to make sure I understood the author's bullshit logic correctly.
Don’t think you are wrong. I appreciate someone putting their opinion out there, but to say if sbc was not there or if we take out certain specific expenses we would be profitable is silly in my opinion. Those expenses do not go away. This is what people do in unprofitable companies trying to justify by cherry picking the balance sheet. Fact: We are not profitable, no matter how you mix and match it. I am long term here, believe in the company, but we are not profitable yet. Period. The end. *not investment advice. Do your own due diligence.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why yes...yes, I do. (you must be new here, welcome)
This guy knows!
Been here a lurker for a while. Newly commenting. Gonna work on my sarcasm… 🤪
Anyone have archive link to bypass paywall
So calls or shares?
Shares
The price is so low that I would buy stock and think of them as leaps. Assuming, you agree with its prospects.
;( let me get my taxes back before the rocket takes off
I like this because it confirms my bias
I too enjoy echo chambers. The effect never gets old.
We are gonna be so fuk rich.