Is the Net Profit the 'final word' on a company's health?
"To answer your question briefly: net income is affected by many things inside and outside of management control, and must be supplemented by other elements to gain a clear picture of a company's health. To answer your question in-depth, we must look at the history of financial reporting: Initially, accounting was primarily cash-based. That is, a business records a sale when a customer pays them cash, and records expenses when cash goes out the door. This was not a perfectly accurate system, as cashflow might be quite erratic even if sales are stable (collection times may differ, etc.). To combat problems with cash-based accounting, financial reporting moved to an accrual-based system. An accrual is the recording of an item before it has fully completed in a cash transaction. For example, when you ship goods to a customer and they owe you money, you record the revenue - then you record the future collection of cash as a balance sheet item, rather than an income statement item. Another example: if your landlord charges you rent on December 31st for the past year, then in each month leading up to December, you accrue the expense on the income statement, even though you haven't paid the landlord yet. Accrual-based accounting leaves room for accounting manipulation. Enron is a prime example; among other things, they were accruing revenue for sales that had not occurred. This 'accelerated' their income, by having it recorded years before cash was ever collectible. There are specific guidelines that restrict doing things like this, but management will still attempt to accelerate net income as much as possible under accounting guidelines. Public companies have their financial statements audited by unrelated accounting firms - theoretically, they exist to catch material misstatements in the financial statements. Finally, some items impacting profit do not show up in net income - they show up in ""Other Comprehensive Income"" (OCI). OCI is meant to show items that occurred in the year, but were outside of management control. For example, changes in the value of foreign subsidiaries, due to fluctuations in currency exchange rates. Or changes in the value of company pension plan, which are impacted by the stock market. However, while OCI is meant to pick up all non-management-caused items, it is a grey area and may not be 100% representative of this idea. So in theory, net income is meant to represent items within management control. However, given the grey area in accounting interpretation, net income may be 'accelerated', and it also may include some items that occurred by some 'random business fluke' outside of company control. Finally, consider that financial statements are prepared months after the last year-end. So a company may show great profit for 2015 when statements come out in March, but perhaps Jan-March results are terrible. In conclusion, net income is an attempt at giving what you want: an accurate representation of the health of a company in terms of what is under management control. However it may be inaccurate due to various factors, from malfeasance to incompetence.  That's why other financial measures exist - as another way to answer the same question about a company's health, to see if those answers agree. ex: Say net income is $10M this year, but was only $6M last year - great, it went up by $4M! But now assume that Accounts Receivable shows $7M owed to the company at Dec 31, when last year there was only $1M owed to the company. That might imply that there are problems collecting on that additional revenue (perhaps revenue was recorded prematurely, or perhaps they sold to customers who went bankrupt).  Unfortunately there is no single number that you can use to see the whole company - different metrics must be used in conjunction to get a clear picture."
The company released its 2nd Quarter Revenue of $1,957,921 a couple days ago however the stock did not move up in any way. Why? If the company is making money shouldn't the stock go up. But that result doesn't indicate that the company is making money.  The word for making money is profit, not revenue.  Profit equals revenue minus costs.  An increasing revenue could mean decreasing profits.  For example, marketing expenses could eat up the entirety of the new revenue.   This is one of the most basic aspects of researching stocks.  If you are having trouble with this, you might find yourself better suited to invest in mutual funds, where they do this research for you.  In particular, the safest kind of mutual funds for an inexperienced investor are index funds that track a major index, like the S&P 500.   Another issue is that stock prices aren't based on historical results but on expected future results.  Many a company has reported smaller than expected profits and had their price fall even though profits increased from previous results.   Looking at it long term would it hurt me in anyway to buy ~100,000 shares which right now would run be about $24 (including to fee) and sit on it? It would cost you $24.  You might get a return some day.  Or you might waste your money.  Given the comparatively large upside, the consensus seems to be that you will probably waste your money.  That said, it's not a lot of money to waste.  So it won't hurt you that much.  The most likely result remains that the company will go bankrupt, leaving your stock worthless. Company was founded as a co-op.  If the company has a loss, you get negative patronage. Basically, it is a paper loss until the company can erase it with profits. However, you would have to pay it off you left the company before it was positive. That's my understanding. The company has only been profitable since I have been here.  If the company were to go bankrupt and didn't have enough assets to pay everyone, first it would pay taxes, then (if there was money) it would pay secured lenders, then unsecured lenders, then preferred shareholders, and finally, in the unlikely event that there was any money left, the workers would get paid back the value of their common stock. The most likely answer to your question regarding what the 'market expects' is perhaps that the market expects that currently Linked-In like a lot of other startups has been plunging almost eveything it makes into building the business and brand.  So right now the net profits are pretty low percentage of income (roughly 1.5% of revenue)  Given the size of the other numbers, it doesn't take a lot of movement in the right direction to get a big change in that tiny final number.  The other factor is the gap between their Net and the Income Available..  I think (but I'm making a logical guess here) a large part of that gap was paying off the losses of the prior two years.  If that's the case, and everything else is static, then next year's 'available' number ought to at least triple.  In order to grow the net, all LI needs is to either continue current trends of growth in expenses relative to costs,  keep expenses steady and experience a slight growth in income, or find a way to reduce expenses without having it impact income. Or something in between those three.   If we take the first case as an example, income has been roughly doubling every year, but expenses growing less than that.  if they were to continue that, but manage to get some economy of scale and have expenses grow at a slower rate, then the jump in net income ought to be substantial. most of the trends you could project end up with a big growth in the bottom line.. but yeah I gotta admit, none of that gets you 117X growth in a single year.  So the conclusion I would draw is that the market is trending a few years out and being pretty optimistic given the current PE ratio.  Of course you could also conclude that the market is 'social network happy' and LNKD represents one of the few opportunities for the average investor to get in on that given that facebook and myspace are not trading on the open market Indeed, there is conservation of money.  If the insurance companies have those big buildings and television commercials and CEOs, then that money comes from only one place: the insurance premiums of customers.  To say insurance is a good deal is either The benefit and cost of insurance for most: Indeed, of all the answers here, James Turner's is best.  If you can't afford to lose something, it is vital to insure it.  Ideally insurance would be a non-profit operation to best cover this.  Such that people would as a whole lose nothing.  Theoretically it could even be slightly for profit by making wise investment decisions, and benefiting from the future value of money by beating inflation.  But they don't (see this writeup for slightly dated information on health, and this Wikipedia article for more direction). But even if you are taking an average loss (by using a profit-making insurance company), by taking insurance you avoid the situation where you're crippled by a catastrophe.  You are paying a fee to hedge your losses.  Like James said, insure what you cannot afford to lose.  But realize you're going into a situation where the overall net is an average loss of between 10-50% of your money, on average.  Basically you're playing the lottery, except your net losses mostly go to fund the company and the CEOs rather than nominally support education. But you sounded like you understood those ideas well, so...   Can you self insure? As others noted, yes, there is the option of self insurance in most places.  Even even often when insurance is considered as required.  For example, in the US, basically car insurance coverage is required.  But generally you are legally able to self insure to cover this requirement:   The cost of self insuring: There is one cost to self-insure: time.  It takes time to research the laws, time to to satisfy those requirements, and then time to find/setup all the care providers (doctors, mechanics, lawyers, etc). When is it worth it?  First, again, you must satisfy the prerequisite: you are able to financially handle the loss of the topic under consideration. At a commenter's request, here is an attempt to better spell out this requirement (though it doesn't appear pertinent to the question asked, it is indeed very important not to mistakenly assume you satisfy this requirement). Can you comfortably cover the level of insurance you would otherwise be taking out.  $50,000/$100,000/$50,000 is a common reasonable insurance level, so that would be $200,000.  Basically, have enough money to cover the loss of your car, your possible injury expenses, and most importantly the damage and medical of anyone else you hit.  You would need to have that value available, optimally in your accounts.  Alternatively, you could weigh it against your assets, such that if you had low accounts but a paid off $200,000 house, you could conceivably sell your property and still be able to survive financially afterwards.  However, it is indeed dangerous to make this assumption, as there may be additional costs and troubles in selling assets, and you may fail to recognize how precious the property is to you.  Having at least double or triple in property you'd be willing to part with might be a more comfortable number.  Again, the main idea is: can you afford to lose the insured value tomorrow?  Though you hope it wouldn't happen, if someone came and took $200,000+ of yours tomorrow, would you be able to adjust to it relatively easily?  If the answer is yes, you've satisfied this requirement.  In many states it's easier to understand whether you can meet this requirement: it instead becomes can you take out the liability bond required. If you've met that requirement, then it comes down to the time you'd lose versus the savings you'd gain.  To get a fair idea, you'll need: The premium you would pay to purchase the insurance: Since you are likely losing 10-50% of your premiums, it should be fair to make a rough estimate of value lost by using 25% for most purposes (especially given that this still ignores the future value/opportunity cost of your money, which could often be 5-10% if invested well) The value of your time:  You must properly identify either:   A rough estimate of how much time it will take you to research the legal requirements and meet them, and then to research/handle the subsequent needs that come up which the insurance would take care of in an average year.  So try to balance those typical years where you wouldn't have a lot of work to do with a year where you'd need to call repair mechanics or find health practitioners.  Perhaps aim high, research/calling usually takes more time than we think.   Is this calculation positive? Your estimated net annual benefit (or cost) from self insuring is: 0.25 * (Insurance Premium Per Year) - (Estimated Value of Your Time)*(Estimated Hours Of Work\Research to Self-Insure Per Year)  This is a rough estimate.  But if the result is quite positive (and you can afford to cover the hit the insurance would otherwise cover), you're likely better off self-insuring. If the result is quite negative (or you can't cover the possible costs insurance would cover), you're probably better off buying insurance. Finally, indeed there are still a few other factors on each side to consider... Most often those additional pluses and minuses probably are smaller than the primary cost/benefits spelt out earlier.  But if you're rich enough to have the money, you're in a situation where you can likely sacrifice a little income to have your peace of mind.  So there's certainly a lot to consider in it.  But if you're a self starter, I believe you're right that you'll find it's more worthwhile to self-insure if you indeed have the resources. Profit margins. The difference goes to shareholders as new equity every quarter. You don’t need growth to see a return on equity. The consumer staple sector is a great example of this. They’ve had negative to 0 revenue growth, yet have posted respectable returns since the recession. This depends very much on why A is making massive losses and how big they are in relation to B. If the group has a history of successfully launching profitable brands, and A is a new brand that has high expenses (production, marketing, etc.) but not yet generating much revenue, then despite the current losses it can be seen as a source of future profits. Or A might be established but currently undergoing an expensive remodelling that promises future success. Or B might simply be a huge cash cow that funds the losses of A out of petty cash. No no, not at all. I'm saying that Bezos, as head of Amazon, should work to improve workers conditions using his influence as founder / chairman / CEO of Amazon. Which is a longer winded way of saying *Amazon* should improve workers conditions.   I think it's great that he's looking to give some of his money away to charity. I think it's rather hypocritical to do that whilst being accused of low employee welfare conditions mind you, but it's certainly better than nothing!   If I'm still not coming across correctly, let me slip into hyperbole and extremes. Let's say a Victorian factory owner employs children in dangerous and gruelling work, 14 hours a day and they get fired if they are ill. But with the money he makes from the factory, he gives some of it to a children's hospital! I mean, that's great, but hey, what about instituting change at the factory too, if you really care about society?  I think that last paragraph detracts from my point actually but I've written it out so I'll leave it there. Don’t you hate this shit? Whenever there’s a business-related or pharmaceutical company article posted on reddit, I try not to read the comments. It’s too frustrating to read all of the comments like the one you responded to. People with no business education or general knowledge of natural economic laws just spewing shit out of their mouths. People with no real understanding of what they’re actually talking about or the real implications of their proposals, but they have an opinion on something that’s been in the news somewhat recently so by god they’re gonna tell you how the fuck it should be!