operating income
Sedar is I guess the Canadian equivalent of EDGAR. You can find the company's filings there.  Here's a picture from their filings. Can't post the link, if you go and find the filing through Sedar you'll know why (it's not as nice a site as EDGAR). The 4.8 million is from unrealized gain on biological assets. So that's what it is. The reason, I think, as to why Operating Income is a positive 2.67 even though Operating Expense and Gross Profit are both negative is because Google Finance backed into Operating Expense. Operating Income is the same between the two sources, it's just the unrealized gain that moves. Judgement, settlement, insurance proceeds, etc etc. These would probably be recorded as a negative expense in the same category where the original expense was recorded.
I think you're a little confused about taxes. First, I'm guessing that you feel your lack of home ownership makes your taxes higher.  That might be true, or it might not.  The main tax break you would get from home ownership is the mortgage interest deduction, and that is a fraction of what you're paying in interest.  So, yeah, your tax bill is lower, but 3-4 times that amount is going out the door in interest.  Plus, when you buy a property, you may have substantial taxes on that property that your landlord is paying now. Secondly, yes, you can deduct expenses on a business, but that only can be done without income for so long before the IRS begins disallowing your deductions.  But if you're making money, the expenses come right off of your income. Third, owning a business means that you get the privilege of paying a self-employment tax, which is the same thing that your employer now pays into Social Security on your behalf.  More taxes! So in short, owning and operating a business has the potential to be more rewarding than holding down a job -- and I recommend starting up a side business just to get another income stream going -- but the tax savings really aren't that appealing to do it just for those. If it was all toward operating expenses (i.e. not investments) then I'd be all aboard the hate train. But that's not where it goes.  I don't spend time on reddit to educate people so I can shit on them. Just know that there are a lot of smart people who follow this company. I'm not here to prove that I'm one of them, but at least consider there is more to this story than an argument about whether someone checked a damn income statement. I mean, really? True blue preferred shares are considered loose hybrids of credit and equity.  They are more senior than common equity in bankruptcy liquidation but pay out a dividend which is not mandatory. Financial institutions issue the bulk of genuine preferred shares because of their need for more flexibility than a bond but not so much that they can afford the cost to shareholders by diluting common equity. Since it is a credit-like security that receives none of the income from operations but merely pays out a potentially unpredictable yet fixed amount of income, it will perform much more like a bond, rising when interest rates fall and vice versa, and since interest rates do not move to the extent of common equity valuations, preferreds' price variances will correspond much more to bonds than common equities.  If the company stops paying the preferred dividend or looks to become in financial trouble, the price of the preferred share should be expected to fall. There are more modern preferred however.  It has now become popular to fund intermediate startups with convertible preferred shares.  Because these are derivatives based upon the common equity, they can be expected to be much more variant. No, Walmart does not rely on government support of workers. That is a very child like view of the matter. Let's not make these people out to be victims. If those workers are not earning enough at Walmart, they should be searching for work elsewhere, or other jobs to supplement their incomes. Nobody is forcing them to work there. This type of job is really best suited for a student, or a retired person, who aren't trying to support a family, etc.  Also, Walmart is only one of a million businesses who operate as a low-cost leader, and I guarantee you that you enjoy the low prices that these companies charge on a regular basis. And this makes you a hypocrite, really, because your purchases are supporting their way of doing business, which in turn leads to the low wages. So if you really want to go down the blaming road, we can blame you as well.  Now, having said that, I believe a living wage is a good thing, and I support legislation in favor of this as a solution to the problem, rather than trying to stifle the natural flow of business by singling out one company and blaming them. And doing this won't harm companies like Walmart; they will still operate just as usual, only *all the prices, at every low cost store* will increase as a result of the higher wages. i cannot directly tell from the provided information if it is already included in Net A/R but if there is a balance sheet you can check yourself if the Total Cash Flow matches the difference between cash position year 0&amp;1 and see if it is net or still to be included. Simply put, expansionary capex is seen as an investment and maintenance capex is seen as a cost.  In terms of valuation, free cash flow will not include expansionary capex because you are valuing the company as its current business. It's important to note that this approach will usually undervalue companies with strong investment opportunities.  Also, like /u/scarletham said, please edit out the identifying information to avoid any disclosure problems. Honestly, I’m not sure I understand your point. The figures suggest to me that the business invests (higher capex and amortisation) and grows it’s revenues and cash flow.  D&amp;A can be higher than new capex for a number of reasons including accelerated amortisation for tax purposes.  Why is D&amp;A contribution (actually i prefer to separate the concepts of P&amp;L and cash flow) to operating cash flow a problem or why does it evidence manipulation? I've been looking through annual reports of some Canadian insurance companies. Having serious trouble with their reporting; it varies widely. I've been trying to create a historic look at the combined ratios, and have been comparing income statements. Maybe that's the wrong place to look.