Hier das original zum Posting oben:
"The adjusted CSOI measure is the one I find a little disturbing. This measure backs out “online marketing expense, acquisition-related costs and stock-based compensation expense.” Not counting online marketing expense seems, uh, ridiculous. The company writes that “online marketing expense primarily represents the cost to acquire new subscribers and is dictated by the amount of growth we wish to pursue.”
Uh, ok. but look what happens if you don’t count it. In Q1, the company had a loss from operations of $117.15 million; that reflects $179.9 million in marketing expenses; back that out and – voila! – massively positive adjusted CSOI. Likewise, for all of 2010, a loss from operations of $420.3 million includes online marketing expenses of $241.5 million, and acquisition expenses of $203.3 million, plus stock-based compensation expenses of $36.2 million. Back all that out, and – tada! – positive adjusted CSOI."
"Let me be clear. Groupon is an amazing company, that has produced phantasmagorical growth, thanks in no small measure to heavy spending for online marketing. To argue that you shouldn’t count that spending is more than a little silly. For shame.
In 1998, the venture capital investor Bill Gurley commented on this specific idea in a post on his Above the Crowd blog. Apparently, he read the Groupon IPO filing 10 years before the company started operations:
“It is rumored that certain Internet CFOs are pushing investor’s to look at EBITDAM. The M represents marketing, and is an attempt to get Wall Street to ignore what has become the single biggest expenditure for Internet startups. This only makes sense if you truly believe that marketing costs will one day go away, which should be considered unlikely. Perhaps we should make it easier and skip straight to EBE (Earnings Before Expenses)…”
It’s deja vu all over again."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/06/02/...h-to-accounting/ |
