81–90 of 105 posts
2012: $14,469 m
2013: $15,899 m (up 9.9%)
2014: $17,259 m (up 8.6%)
2015: $19,651 m (up 13.9%)
2016: $24,150 m (up 22.9%)
Impressive growth for such a big company.
Sources: https://abc.xyz/investor/news/earnings/2016/Q4_alphabet_earn... and https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOGL&fstype=ii&ei...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(I'm an employee, with clear biases) Precisely this. Large scale infrastructure growth also costs quite a bit, especially when you pay for your own network and other works in progress https://cloud.google.com/about/locations/
No, that doesn't explain it. Some cost has to be going up by much more than 22%. Headcount only went up 16% - ie. from 62k to 72k.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's fun to have your own extension, isn't it? then you can host http://hooli.xyz as well, which is good fun too (It's the parody website of the equivalent of Google in the TV show "Silicon Valley", which in itself is a good amount of self-irony).
It doesn't look like Google owns .xyz, though. The hooli site says Copyright HBO on the bottom. http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/10/googles-abcxyz-just-put-this-...
Net income before tax: 2012: $14,469 m 2013: $15,899 m (up 9.9%) 2014: $17,259 m (up 8.6%) 2015: $19,651 m (up 13.9%) 2016: $24,150 m (up 22.9%) Impressive growth for such a big company. Sources: https://abc.xyz/investor/news/earnings/2016/Q4_alphabet_earn... and https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOGL&fstype=ii&ei...
(19.32 gr/cm^3)(37.88 $/gr)(60 * 60 * 24 * 365 s/year) ~= $23B, close enough.
Editorializing: Paid clicks on Google properties +43% - "yaaay we're driving more paid search!" Cost-per-click on Google properties -16% - "ouch our advertisers are seeing less value on these add'l clicks!" To me the second part of this is going to be most interesting to watch - if the clicks they are onboarding are lower quality, this is going to be a net negative.
This was due to a one time tax hit. >Alphabet was forced to swallow a $586 million tax charge on the non-GAAP line related to its stock-based compensation, costing the company about 83 cents a share — the difference between a substantial earnings miss and a huge beat. >The tax charge is the result of a rule change in the U.S. targeting companies’ use of stock-based compensation to sweeten their adjusted earnings numb…
> This was due to a one time tax hit Was it a one-time hit or is this the new normal for stock-based compensation (SBC)?
Net income before tax: 2012: $14,469 m 2013: $15,899 m (up 9.9%) 2014: $17,259 m (up 8.6%) 2015: $19,651 m (up 13.9%) 2016: $24,150 m (up 22.9%) Impressive growth for such a big company. Sources: https://abc.xyz/investor/news/earnings/2016/Q4_alphabet_earn... and https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ%3AGOOGL&fstype=ii&ei...
The way I like to think of it is that Google has a wondrous faucet that constantly exudes liquid gold, about a cubic centimeter every second. It is our job to keep the faucet open. Occasionally we also do other cool stuff. (19.32 gr/cm^3)(37.88 $/gr)(60 * 60 * 24 * 365 s/year) ~= $23B, close enough.
Interesting the effective tax rate went from 5% last year to 22% this year. What would cause that?
For FYE 2012 through the end of 2015 Alphabet's Income After Tax has been, on average, 81% of its Income Before Tax. That implies a 19% average tax rate. Excluding Q4 2015, the same ratio for Q3 2015 through the end of Q3 2016 was 82%. That implies an 18% average tax rate. The anomaly was Q4 2015, not this most-recent quarter. Source: Google Finance
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(I'm an employee, with clear biases) Precisely this. Large scale infrastructure growth also costs quite a bit, especially when you pay for your own network and other works in progress https://cloud.google.com/about/locations/
No, that doesn't explain it. Some cost has to be going up by much more than 22%. Headcount only went up 16% - ie. from 62k to 72k.