I don't understand, the article says of the 7 million after break-even they only got 567, who got the rest of the money ? Where did it go ?
And even then, hundreds of people recieved a salary for a few years, is it not pretty good already ? To be able to sustain all these people ?
Could be loan payments, repaying investors, taxes ..
Might be.. the article is really unclear, but I really don't think it is, they already factored in 42million in charges from the 49m.. There something I don't understand with this.
Thats due to 0 economic knowledge of the author. The article says 49 mil profit, which should be revenue. If you mix up such basic figures I wouldn't trust any other 'analysis' of the article.
Exactly. Things like loan payments would be part of expenses, so either the $7m isn't profit, or they have a really bad deal with their investors if they're taking pretty much all of the profit.
I assume the salaries are included in the break even?
I don't understand, the article says of the 7 million after break-even they only got 567, who got the rest of the money ? Where did it go ?
And even then, hundreds of people recieved a salary for a few years, is it not pretty good already ? To be able to sustain all these people ?
Could be loan payments, repaying investors, taxes ..
Might be.. the article is really unclear, but I really don't think it is, they already factored in 42million in charges from the 49m.. There something I don't understand with this.
Thats due to 0 economic knowledge of the author. The article says 49 mil profit, which should be revenue. If you mix up such basic figures I wouldn't trust any other 'analysis' of the article.
Exactly. Things like loan payments would be part of expenses, so either the $7m isn't profit, or they have a really bad deal with their investors if they're taking pretty much all of the profit.
I assume the salaries are included in the break even?