How could a company survive just on operations cash flow, i.e. no earnings?
It is true that operation profit comes from gross profit however it is possible for a company to have negative net profit yet have postive cash flow , it has to do with the accounting practice A possible example is that a company has extremely high depreciation expense of fixed asset hence net profit will be negative but cash flow will be positive. Assuming the fixed asset has been fully paid for in earlier years "It depends on the definition of earnings.  A company could have revenue that nets in excess of expenses, so from that perspective a good cash flow or EBITDA, but have debt servicing costs, taxes, depreciation, amortization, that alters that perspective. So if a company is carrying a large debt load, then the bondholders are in the position to capture any excess revenues through debt service payments and the company is in a negative equity positions (no equity or dividends payable to shareholders) and has not produced earnings. If a company has valuable preferred shares issued and outstanding, then depending on the earnings definition, there may be no earnings (for the common stock) until the preferences are satisfied by the returns. So while the venture itself (revenues minus costs) could be cash flow positive, this may not be sufficient to produce ""earnings"" for shareholders, whose claim on the company still entitles them to zero current liquidation value (i.e. they get nothing if the company dissolves immediately - all value goes to bondholders or preferred).  It could also be that taxes are eating into revenue, or the depreciation of key assets is greater than the excess of revenues over costs (e.g. a bike rental company by the beach makes money on a weekly basis but is rusting out half its stock every 3 months and replacement costs will overwhelm the operating revenues)."
"There are many different methods for a corporation to get money, but they mostly fall into three categories: earnings, debt and equity.  Earnings would be just the corporation's accumulation of cash due to the operation of its business. Perhaps if cash was needed for a particular reason immediately, a business may consider selling a division or group of assets to another party, and using the proceeds for a different part of the business. Debt is money that (to put it simply) the corporation legally must repay to the lender, likely with periodic interest payments. Apart from the interest payments (if any) and the principal (original amount leant), the lender has no additional rights to the value of the company. There are, basically, 2 types of corporate debt: bank debt, and bonds.  Bank debt is just the corporation taking on a loan from a bank. Bonds are offered to the public - ie: you could potentially buy a ""Tesla Bond"", where you give Tesla $1k, and they give you a stated interest rate over time, and principal repayments according to a schedule. Which type of debt a corporation uses will depend mostly on the high cost of offering a public bond, the relationships with current banks, and the interest rates the corporation thinks it can get from either method. Equity [or, shares] is money that the corporation (to put it simply) likely does not have a legal obligation to repay, until the corporation is liquidated (sold at the end of its life) and all debt has already been repaid. But when the corporation is liquidated, the shareholders have a legal right to the entire value of the company, after those debts have been paid. So equity holders have higher risk than debt holders, but they also can share in higher reward. That is why stock prices are so volatile - the value of each share fluctuates based on the perceived value of the entire company.  Some equity may be offered with specific rules about dividend payments - maybe they are required [a 'preferred' share likely has a stated dividend rate almost like a bond, but also likely has a limited value it can ever receive back from the corporation], maybe they are at the discretion of the board of directors, maybe they will never happen. There are 2 broad ways for a corporation to get money from equity: a private offering, or a public offering. A private offering could be a small mom and pop store asking their neighbors to invest 5k so they can repair their business's roof, or it could be an 'Angel Investor' [think Shark Tank] contributing significant value and maybe even taking control of the company. Perhaps shares would be offered to all current shareholders first. A public offering would be one where shares would be offered up to the public on the stock exchange, so that anyone could subscribe to them. Why a corporation would use any of these different methods depends on the price it feels it could get from them, and also perhaps whether there are benefits to having different shareholders involved in the business [ie: an Angel investor would likely be involved in the business to protect his/her investment, and that leadership may be what the corporation actually needs, as much or more than money]. Whether a corporation chooses to gain cash from earnings, debt, or equity depends on many factors, including but not limited to: (1) what assets / earnings potential it currently has; (2) the cost of acquiring the cash [ie: the high cost of undergoing a public offering vs the lower cost of increasing a bank loan]; and (3) the ongoing costs of that cash to both the corporation and ultimately the other shareholders - ie: a 3% interest rate on debt vs a 6% dividend rate on preferred shares vs a 5% dividend rate on common shares [which would also share in the net value of the company with the other current shareholders].  In summary: Earnings would be generally preferred, but if the company needs cash immediately, that may not be suitable. Debt is generally cheap to acquire and interest rates are generally lower than required dividend rates. Equity is often expensive to acquire and maintain [either through dividend payments or by reduction of net value attributable to other current shareholders], but may be required if a new venture is risky. ie: a bank/bondholder may not want to lend money for a new tech idea because it is too risky to just get interest from - they want access to the potential earnings as well, through equity." You're indeed right, this cannot be answered affirmatively. I will try, without going too deep in details, to brush a shallow portrait In its simplest form, a going concern company could be valued by the present value of a growing perpetuity (Cash Flow/(Required return - growth)), assuming compounding perpetual growth. That's a massive assumption for a yet to turn a dime company. That's why comparable transactions are usually used as benchmark. In this case, your PE can be thought as the inverse of a growing perpetuity, and it's size will be determined by the difference between return and growth. So when you're pre-revenue, you're basically trying to value a moonshot with everything to prove, no matter how genius the idea. Considering the high levels of financial risks due to failure, VCs will require biblical levels of returns (50% to 90% is not unheard of). Hence why they usually leave with a good chunk of the company in seed rounds. When you've had a few sales, you got to know your customer and you've tested the markets, your direction gets clearer and your prospects improve. Risks moves down a notch and the next round of financing will be at much lower rates. Your growth rate, still high but nowhere as crazy as before, can be estimated with relatively more precision. Companies turning a recurrent level of profits are the easiest to value (all else being equal). The financial mathematics are more appropriate now, and their value will be derived by current market conditions as well as comparable transactions. With unlimited resources and perfect markets, the value of the company will be the same wether the founder is at the helm or the VCs are in the place. But considering many founders need the VCs' resources to extract the value of their company and markets are imperfect, the value of the company can change significantly depending on the decisions. Hope that helps! A lot of these firms consist of ex-McKinsey consulting people that know how to evaluate operations, efficiency, etc.  Like any company, operating plans are presented by mgmt to the board and implemented by management.  The PE firm works with management to design the operating strategy, and that may be done in-house (PE firm) and/or with outside consults in the industry.  Operational performance is important, but unfortunately a lot of PE firms really only engage in financial engineering.  The more industry/sector specific the PE the firm, the more value they likely add (as a generalization). It just had less cash. That doesn't necessarily mean that the company had a net loss for the year. Just like having more cash doesn't mean the company made a profit.   What if a company had revenue of $1 million, expenses of $2 million, and took out a loan of $5 million? They had a net loss of $1 million, but they have $4 million more in cash. Accounting profits and cash flow are two different things. Say for example that I sell you a widget and you pay me today. I deliver the widget to you in February. In accounting terms, the revenue isn't recorded until Feb even though I have the cash in October. There's also a lot of non-cash items that affect accounting income (depreciation, amortization, etc.) In a small, growing company, cash is the most important thing. Many startups know what their burn rate (how much net cash their out flowing each month) and runway (how many months they can survive with their given burn rate until they are literally out of cash) more intimately than their accounting profit.   As for what qualifies as a startup, that's something that is debated in the startup world fairly often. I think the best take is from Paul Graham. http://paulgraham.com/growth.html "The answer is Discounted Cash Flows. Companies that don't pay dividends are, ostensibly reinvesting their cash at returns higher than shareholders could obtain elsewhere.  They are reinvesting in productive capacity with the aim of using this greater productive capacity to generate even more cash in the future. This isn't just true for companies, but for almost any cash-generating project. With a project you can purchase some type of productive assets, you may perform some kind of transformation on the good (or not), with the intent of selling a product, service, or in fact the productive mechanism you have built, this productive mechanism is typically called a ""company"". What is the value of such a productive mechanism? Yes, it's capacity to continue producing cash into the future. Under literally any scenario, discounted cash flow is how cash flows at distinct intervals are valued.  A company that does not pay dividends now is capable of paying them in the future.  Berkshire Hathaway  does not pay a dividend currently, but it's cash flows have been reinvested over the years such that it's current cash paying capacity has multiplied many thousands of times over the decades. This is why companies that have never paid dividends trade at higher prices. Microsoft did not pay dividends for many years because the cash was better used developing the company to pay cash flows to investors in later years. A companies value is the sum of it's risk adjusted cash flows in the future, even when it has never paid shareholders a dime. If you had a piece of paper that obligated an entity (such as the government) to absolutely pay you $1,000 20 years from now, this $1,000 cash flows present value could be estimated using Discounted Cash Flow. It might be around $400, for example.  But let's say you want to trade this promise to pay before the 20 years is up.  Would it be worth anything?  Of course it would.  It would in fact typically go up in value (barring heavy inflation) until it was worth very close to $1,000 moments before it's value is redeemed. Imagine that this ""promise to pay"" is much like a non-dividend paying stock.  Throughout its life it has never paid anyone anything, but over the years it's value goes up.  It is because the discounted cash flow of the $1,000 payout can be estimated at almost anytime prior to it's payout." I don't believe you would be able to with only Net Sales and COGS.  Are you talking about trying to estimate them?  Because then I could probably come up with an idea based on industry averages, etc.  I think you would need to know the average days outstanding, inventory turnover and the terms they're getting from their vendors to calculate actuals.  There may be other ways to solve the problem you're asking but thats my thoughts on it. "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." "Additionally, the original commenter I was responding to was making an argument that ""they don't make money therefore they're a failure"", which isn't a bad argument to make if you're talking about *revenue*.  Companies that make no revenue are generally considered to be failures, so in that context, he would be correct to say ""they're a failure because they make no money"", and you wouldn't really need any other points to back up your argument.  That being said, plenty of businesses, start-ups especially burn through more money than they make. The lack of profit doesn't necessarily make them a failure provided they are still generating revnue, which Tesla is, and a lot of it.  So, if you'd like to have a discussion about whether they're making *enough* *revenue*, or whether they're poorly re-investing the *revenue* they are making, and how those factors might determine whether or not they should be considered a failure, then I'd be happy to participate.  But if you're only interested in making replies that try to condecend to me because you're too quick to jump to conclusions about what I've written, then have at it I guess. Whatever floats your boat." Depending on the improvement, you have to amortize or depreciate it over time, which effectively allows you to write off the value over a period of years, even if you pay for it all up front. This messes with cash flow, which is different than profitability, but when you span the write off over five or ten years, the distinction between cash flow and profitability for a private, self funded company is irrelevant. If the money ain't there, the money ain't there. Operating capital is life blood.  Taxes also alter the ROI equation of the investment, since you don't keep all the money you put in.  Way over simplified example: Lets say I close out the year with some arbitrary profit - ten million bucks - in my war chest. 3.5 could go to taxes. I also know that my supplier can't handle my volume for next year while the season is hot, so I'd like to buy inventory in the off season. Last year I sold 6.5 mill worth of stuff from this supplier, but I estimate I could sell 9-10 mill if I didn't have availability problems. If I buy 9-10 mill in inventory, I can't pay taxes. If I pay taxes, I can't buy enough to grow next year.   Sure, COGS is a deductible expense, but the expense isn't realized until the inventory is sold, which won't be until long after these taxes are due.  I now have taxes interfering with my expansion, even though eventually I can write that off.  Now lets look at the manufacturer - sure he could expand his capacity and make more money, but he has to deduct the 5 mill machine he needs over twenty years (or ten or whatever) while the purchase price needs to be made today. This year he's gonna pay tax on 90 or 95% of the money he used to buy that machine, which would eat into the money he needs to buy raw materials to fill orders he already has.  Of course, the real world is much more complicated, and you can leverage leasing agreements and purchasing terms to alleviate this to some extent, but I wanted to illustrate a point. I hope my extremely simplified example communicated what I mean.  Does that make sense? Dividends and interest are counted under operations for the purpose of this tweet. This is pretty much entirely a non-story. I'm not sure exactly how they're dividing it up, but it looks like they're only counting stock appreciation as capital gains and counting things revenue from sales (from their subsidiaries as well) under operating income.   This is just from a quick glance over their statement of earning, but that's what it looks like to me. You are omitting how the company made 120 million in the previous year and may be facing a shrinking market and thus have poor future prospects. If the company is shrinking, what will the shares be worth down the road. Remember companies like AOL or Blackberry? There was a time they had big profits before things changed which is the part you aren't considering here. If the company has lost something big on its earnings, e.g. the oil wells it owned have run out of reserves or the patents on its key drugs have expired, then there could be the perception that the company won't be able to compete in the future to continue to deliver earnings. Some companies may well end up going broke as one could look at GM for a company that used to be one of the largest car companies in the world and yet it ended up going broke. In order to grow the way they do without recording profits, they need to find costs (or cut prices). The revenue is turning over because it's being paid out all over the place. Either those companies are running on razor thin margins, or they're paying taxes. There's also payroll taxes for the 270,000 workers. Being pushed to produce quarterly numbers isn't always the best for a company's long-term strategies. Whether or not this will happen is the question, however. Private companies don't need to post immediate substantial profits, public companies are expected to. Usually their PE ratio will just be listed as 0 or blank.  Though I've always wondered why they don't just list the negative PE as from a straight math standpoint it makes sense. PE while it can be a useful barometer for a company, but certainly does not tell you everything.  A company could have negative earnings for a lot of reasons, some good and some bad.  The company could just be a bad company and could be losing money hand over fist, or the company could have had a one time occurrence such as a big acquisition or some other event that just affected this years earnings, or they could be an awesome high growth company that is heavily investing for their future and forgoing locking in profits now for much bigger profits in the future. Generally IPO company's fall into that last category as they are going public usually because they want an influx of cash that they are going to use to grow the company much more rapidly.  So they are likely already taking all incoming $$ and taking on debt to grow the company and have exceeded all of those options and that's when they turn to the stock market for the additional influx of cash, so it is very common for these companies not to have earnings.   Now you just have to decide if that company is investing that money wisely and will in the future translate to actual earnings.