31–40 of 67 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I think I'm trying to state: "Aren't the bulk of Meta's offerings too susceptible to trends to garner the trust required for a 40 year bond?" Meta has more cash on hand and revenue than most countries . They are an institution unto themselves at this point, regardless of the future success of any individual product.
So why do they need to raise more funds?
If meta needs to lay off tens of thousands of people to make their financials look good enough to appeal to investors, that suggests to a layman like me that they weren't turning enough profit per employee to justify the things those people are working on. This comes, notably, after raising $10B last year before the layoffs. So besides stock buybacks, what does it actually mean "to build a more traditional balance sh…
Meta has ~$40B as Cash-on-Hand [1]. Why does it need to raise this money via bonds? [1] https://companiesmarketcap.com/meta-platforms/cash-on-hand
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I think I'm trying to state: "Aren't the bulk of Meta's offerings too susceptible to trends to garner the trust required for a 40 year bond?" Meta has more cash on hand and revenue than most countries . They are an institution unto themselves at this point, regardless of the future success of any individual product.
So why do they need to raise more funds?
Offering a bond and using it for buybacks is a way for shareholders to make future profits today.
If meta needs to lay off tens of thousands of people to make their financials look good enough to appeal to investors, that suggests to a layman like me that they weren't turning enough profit per employee to justify the things those people are working on. This comes, notably, after raising $10B last year before the layoffs. So besides stock buybacks, what does it actually mean "to build a more traditional balance sh…
And for raising debt, a factor is it's usually much easier and cheaper to raise debt when you don't need to. This one applies to startups as well, you're in pretty bad shape if you're low on money and need to raise capital. So if the conditions are right, it's worth it to raise now if the conditions are right, even if you're not going to start torching it for a couple of years.
I can understand when interest rates are low as part of a "might as well get more money when it's nearly free" mindset, but as that's no longer the case, I don't understand the rationale behind this.
If meta needs to lay off tens of thousands of people to make their financials look good enough to appeal to investors, that suggests to a layman like me that they weren't turning enough profit per employee to justify the things those people are working on. This comes, notably, after raising $10B last year before the layoffs. So besides stock buybacks, what does it actually mean "to build a more traditional balance sh…
> Layoffs mean they're doing less This isn't true, it means they had fat to trim. People that were under performing or working on nothing. There was a hiring arms race the last several years and everyone over hired fearing other companies would get talent first. The industry at most of the notable tech companies was bloated.
Meta has ~$40B as Cash-on-Hand [1]. Why does it need to raise this money via bonds? [1] https://companiesmarketcap.com/meta-platforms/cash-on-hand
I know there are already lots of questions to this effect, but if anyone can point to a good blog post that outlines "Why massively profitable companies with huge amounts of cash sell lots of bonds", I'd love to see it! I can understand when interest rates are low as part of a "might as well get more money when it's nearly free" mindset, but as that's no longer the case, I don't understand the rationale behind this.