RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Here it goesmonty613 wrote: bandit69 wrote:
how is that? I mentioned they were not prifitable and that's derived from the revenue statement..... you are the one that keeps saying they are cash flow positive which, is focused on the cash flow statement. If you go back I clearly said all statements are linked (revenue, balance sheet, cash flow) and what happens on one affects the other two.
And I can't believe anyone who falls for the mantra that depreciation and amortization are not real or are "fictional" costs to a business. Stunning.
I don't need an accounting lesson. you just don't seem to understand how EBITDA shows a clearer picture of this company's true profitability and cashflow generating abilities when
I've put this explanation together quite quickly, but it is my view that this expense is truly non-cash. I'm sure Warren Buffet would agree.
You are right, I am SURE!! he would agree with you. LOL
You're gonna see what you wanna see and, more accurate, what a publicly traded company wants you to see.
As I said, the human ego is very powerful. LMAO.