|
|
|
|
|
by lugg
2656 days ago
|
|
I took it the same way. If there is a better way to judge the true financial prospects of a company we should be taxing them accordingly. My point was that GAAP is probably the best we're going to do because of the consistency problems. The moment you start applying special rules or caveats per company you stop being able to compare companies properly as an investor, at which point the measure becomes useless as a talking point as well as being useless for tax calculations. My original post was framed against tax because it doesn't really make a difference. If the new method is good enough for comparison between companies it's good enough to replace GAAP - unless it's not. |
|
The main thing investors want are some measures that are reasonably forward looking, with the caveat that some of those forward-looking measures will of course be inaccurate when the future comes.
Taxes, on the other hand, should be mostly past looking, taking into account events that are fully settled and guaranteed.
If, as an investor, you're only examining trailing metrics, you're going to be a pretty horrible investor.