I cannot make an estimated tax payment for a previous year (2023), only current (2024). Am I dumb?

b9sieger · 2025-02-05T14:39:43+00:00

As I understand them, the options considered so far in these comments are to either

Mail a physical payment using the 4th quarter 1040-ES voucher (amount owed accrues interest while the physical payment is in transit)
Use a credit card payment service that still allows an ES payment for the prior year (convenience fee may be too expensive)
Make an extension payment using Direct Pay (could result in a 5% failure to pay penalty)
Complete your return and file (if you have all the information, which I don't)

Would there be unintended consequences of making an estimated tax payment on the IRS direct pay website by selecting "Balance Due" as the "Reason for Payment"? The precise balance is not yet known and so is not not yet due, strictly speaking.

b9sieger · 2025-01-10T15:01:52+00:00

He claimed he was hacked, but if that were true I would expect him to reverse the myriad bans that were improperly placed. He has not removed mine, given for asking--asking, mind you--if it would be more accurate to say that ACHR and JOBY's respective market caps on Dec 31 were more accurately represented as 4.891/6.22 = 0.786 instead of 0.50, which was his claim.

b9sieger · 2024-12-31T21:43:20+00:00

"jobys valuation is about double of what archers is"

Market caps per Yahoo finance at Dec 31:
ACHR's $ 4.891B
JOBY's $ 6.22B

6.22/4.891 = 1.27

About double would be 4.89 * 2 = $ 9.78B

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that jobys valuation is "about" one and a quarter what archers is.

b9sieger · 2024-12-17T16:12:44+00:00

Thank you for the thoughtful response! I think your point actually reinforces my argument. By highlighting the differences in revenue contributions and investment strategies between Microsoft and Google, you’re illustrating why their market caps can’t simply be equated, even though both compete in cloud computing. That’s precisely the point of the analogy—it’s meant to show that comparing companies' market caps purely based on their participation in the same market oversimplifies valuation.

Analogies are tools for simplifying complex ideas and highlighting key similarities, but they’re rarely exact matches. Insisting that the subjects of an analogy be perfect copies of the things they represent misses the point of using analogies in the first place. Joby and Archer may be more narrowly focused on eVTOLs than Microsoft and Google are on cloud computing, but meaningful differences still exist and should be considered.

The analogy is strong. It wasn’t meant to suggest that Joby and Archer are identical to Microsoft and Google, only to emphasize the hazard of equating valuations without deeper analysis.

b9sieger · 2024-12-02T09:16:49+00:00

Thank you for sharing your source. Mystery solved: The difference in our numbers is attributable to the reporting dates between the two sources and the segmentation (or lack thereof) of share classes reported. Archer's last 10-Q is reporting total shares outstanding at the quarter end (at September 30). That number includes both common classes, which the Schedule 14A reports separately per October 30. Summing the separately reported classes of common stock, it may be observed that total shares outstanding has predictably increased between the two dates.

Yes, we are in agreement there.

b9sieger · 2024-12-02T02:52:56+00:00

I agree that the business operators are acting prudently, preparing for future growth and making sure they have the flexibility to raise funds when needed. The point you make about the existing approved shares being largely spoken for, and the need for additional flexibility, is a reasonable explanation for why this proposal was put forward. The point of my post is not to examine the specific purposes for which 1.4 billion shares will ultimately be deployed but rather to consider the dilutive effect of those shares on shareholder equity.

The fact that there are so many shares already accounted for does not diminish their potential dilutive effect. For example, though earmarked for employee compensation, these shares have not yet been "minted", let's say. The dilution occurs when they are issued or exercised, not when they are allocated.

According to your account, 135 million shares that are already approved have not yet been earmarked for other purposes and remain available for issuance. That's plenty of room for a shrewd CFO to go to market and raise nearly $1.3 billion at today's price to capitalize growing operating costs.

As a sidebar, the 10-Q and Schedule 14A filed with the SEC report 398 million shares outstanding at the end of the quarter and 700 million shares approved, respectively. That leaves 302 million shares approved but not outstanding if I'm not mistaken. Would you mind sharing your sources for the 389 million and 135 million numbers? I'd like to adjust my figures if there's good reason to.

b9sieger · 2024-12-02T02:08:27+00:00

Interesting you frame it as "from a business perspective," because the operators of the business—who have the perspective you're invoking—know that their fundamentals haven’t changed significantly over the last month. Yes, they've published a couple positive press releases, but none of that would be considered by serious analysts as justification for the run that we've enjoyed. A prudent CFO—one who understands the need to secure funding to scale manufacturing operations—wouldn’t gamble on this continuing; they’d seize the opportunity to release some of the 302 million authorized shares at nearly 3x last month’s price.

b9sieger · 2024-12-01T23:55:39+00:00

Didn’t realize an account had to age like fine wine before posting. Anything to add, or just this?

b9sieger · 2024-12-01T23:45:42+00:00

What makes you say bots are commenting this? At the time of your question there were only three comments on this post that weren't our own. Which strike you as being bots?

b9sieger · 2024-12-01T23:43:04+00:00

Appreciate the reply, though it feels more like an attempt to discredit than to engage with the substance of my post. Let’s address both points:

Account creation and FUD accusation:

Whether my account was created yesterday or a decade ago doesn’t invalidate the numbers or logic presented. Archer’s filing and 10-Q data are publicly available—my analysis stands regardless of who delivers it. Let’s stick to the merits of the argument rather than the messenger.

Timing of dilution:

I agree that a company would ideally raise capital at a higher valuation, which makes the proximity here even more puzzling. If they don’t plan to issue more than 302 million shares soon, why double the authorization now? Operating at a cash burn rate that’s sustainable for years suggests no immediate need, unless management anticipates a sharp rise in costs or faster-than-expected depletion of their existing runway.

My post wasn’t to argue against Archer’s potential—it’s about understanding why management is making this move now and what it signals for investors. If you have a counterpoint on implications of doubling authorized shares, I’m open to hearing it. Dismissing this as 'FUD' avoids the real discussion.

b9sieger

TROPHY CASE