Three ways to view stock-based pay
| Perspective | SBC Is... | Why |
|---|---|---|
| GAAP accounting | An expense on the income statement | Reduces reported earnings |
| Cash flow statement | Added back (non-cash expense) | No cash left the company |
| Shareholder value | A real cost via dilution | More shares = each existing share worth less |
Why adjusted earnings that exclude stock mislead
Some tech companies report strong 'adjusted earnings' by excluding SBC. But if a company pays $1B in stock compensation, that is $1B of value transferred from shareholders to employees. It is real.
Compare stock pay to net income
Look up a tech company like GOOG or META. Check the SBC expense in the financials. Compare it to net income. Is it material?
Why free cash flow should not ignore stock pay
Does adding back stock pay give true earnings?
A tech company reports $500M net income, $200M of which is stock-based compensation (SBC) added back to calculate non-GAAP earnings. Is $700M the true earnings?
Check your understanding
Sit with the ideas.
Company A reports $500M operating cash flow (which includes a $200M add-back of stock-based compensation) and spent $150M on capex. Treating SBC as a real cost, what is its SBC-adjusted free cash flow?
Why: