|
|
|
|
|
|
by notdarkyet
1021 days ago
|
|
|
Goalpost shifting Lol -2 billion in net income is exactly what I think it is saying. Are we saying Ford is committing accounting fraud or trickery? "It's super easy for a company to make up additional overhead above and beyond gross profits to disappear everything." What about administrative costs? What about debt? Do we ignore everything besides COGS? Dividend payments, stock buybacks, etc are not ways to disappear everything. They are ways to make their stock attractive to buyers, keep them in dividend indices, etc How is this whole thread ignoring standard accounting and the reality of properly running a business? |
|
|
No. That's a misrepresentation of what I'm saying. I'm not accusing ford of doing anything illicit with their accounting. I'm saying that net income is a number that's both easily and frequently gamed.
> What about administrative costs? What about debt? Do we ignore everything besides COGS?
Nope, I'm saying we should pay the "COGS" fairly because they are ultimately what makes the business run. The admin and shareholders can be paid after the cogs get paid.
Have you considered that money is fungible? The admin can take lower salaries, do less buybacks, and enter into less debt. And, in fact, I'd suggest (and you'd likely agree) that a good business does that anyways. If operational costs were 0, any business could still find a way to have negative income.