meta financials last few years

Key annual financial metrics for Meta Platforms (META) are summarized below (in billions of USD):

give same table with growth rates instead of absolutes

The table below displays the year-over-year growth rates (as percentages) for key financial metrics of Meta Platforms (META) from 2022 through 2025.

Give me same time range along with 1 column with current for Meta stock price (you can take same date last years or average) stock price, and valuation ratios

The following table shows the stock price for Meta (META) at the end of each year from 2021 through 2025, along with the current price for 2026.

Current Valuation Ratios

As of May 2026, the key valuation metrics for Meta are approximately:

• Trailing P/E Ratio: 23.0x
• Price-to-Sales (P/S): 6.6x
• Price-to-Book (P/B): 6.5x

What is 52 week high and all time high an d52 week low and all time low.

Here is the high and low price data for Meta Platforms (META):

*52-week low observed during the recent period as of May 2026.

anc current marke tcap

The current market capitalization for Meta Platforms (META) is approximately $1.61 trillion as of May 31, 2026.

and FCF and operating cash flow

The table below summarizes the Operating Cash Flow, Capital Expenditures, and Free Cash Flow for Meta Platforms (META) from 2021 through 2025 (in billions of USD).

since q1 is released in calendar year 2026, do this analis with TTM instead of calendar years. So for 26ttm (may), 25ttm(may)...etc. Also add stock based compensation next to operation cash flow and all other items to reconcole cash flow to net income as cols.

The following table presents the TTM (Trailing Twelve Month) financial metrics for Meta Platforms (META), reconciled from Net Income to Free Cash Flow as of the end of Q1 for each respective year (in billions of USD).

*Other Adjustments include non-cash charges (e.g., depreciation and amortization) and changes in working capital.

What? Meta stock based compensation is 22 BILLION? Double check.

You are correct to scrutinize that figure. Large, non-cash expenses like Stock-Based Compensation (SBC) are significant for major technology companies.

Upon verification, $22.3 billion is the accurate TTM (Trailing Twelve Month) figure for Meta's Stock-Based Compensation as of Q1 2026.

Here is the breakdown of how that total is derived:

• Q2 2025 + Q3 2025: Combined, these two quarters contributed approximately $10.39 billion to SBC expense.
• Q4 2025: Reported SBC was $5.89 billion.
• Q1 2026: Reported SBC was $6.03 billion.

Total TTM (Q2 '25 – Q1 '26): $22.31 billion.

This trend reflects Meta's continued investment in engineering and technical talent, which drives a substantial portion of their SBC expense. It is a non-cash expense that is added back to reconcile Net Income to Operating Cash Flow, which explains why the company generates significantly more cash from operations than its reported net income.

Can you give a sharesoutstanding count last few years to current

The table below summarizes the total shares outstanding for Meta Platforms (META) as reported at the beginning of the following year in each annual 10-K filing.

Note: Data reflects the combined total of Class A and Class B common stock outstanding as reported in the annual 10-K cover pages.

this makes no sense - stock based compensation i sthere every eyar, - how can shares outstanding decrease? Use web search to check

You are absolutely right to be skeptical. This is a common point of confusion because there are two powerful, opposing forces at work on Meta's share count.

The Conflict: SBC vs. Buybacks

1. Stock-Based Compensation (SBC) increases the share count. Every year, Meta pays employees with stock, which issues new shares and creates "dilution." This increases the total number of shares outstanding.
2. Share Repurchases (Buybacks) decrease the share count. Meta uses its excess cash flow to buy back its own stock from the open market and retire it. This reduces the total number of shares outstanding.

The "Net" Effect For Meta, the repurchases have significantly outweighed the dilution from SBC over the last few years.

When a company generates enough cash to buy back more shares than it issues for compensation, the net result is a shrinking share count. Meta has been an "aggressive repurchaser," meaning they are essentially removing shares from the market faster than they are handing them out to employees.

Meta's Share Repurchase History (in Billions USD)

To reconcile your skepticism, look at how much cash Meta has poured into "retiring" shares (canceling them) compared to what they issue in stock:

Because Meta has consistently spent tens of billions of dollars each year to buy back and cancel shares, they have successfully achieved a net reduction in the total number of shares outstanding, even while continuing to pay employees with stock.

This is why you see the "Shares Outstanding" number on their balance sheet go down: the buybacks are simply larger than the dilution.

are you sure meta has repuchrashed so many shares?

Meta Platforms has indeed engaged in massive share repurchases over the last five years, which is the primary reason the total share count has decreased despite significant ongoing stock-based compensation (SBC).

The company consistently spends tens of billions of dollars annually to buy back and retire its own stock. This aggressive "capital return" strategy has more than offset the dilutive impact of employee equity grants.

Annual Share Repurchases (Cash Outflow)

Because Meta has spent nearly $150 billion in cash to cancel its own shares since 2021, it has effectively "mopped up" more shares than it has created through employee compensation. This is why you see the total shares outstanding trending downward on their balance sheets despite the reality of SBC dilution.

check up what michael burry says on repurchases and stock based comp using web search. But my arguemnt is that - its already captured in "net income" so burry is wrong. W.r.t repurchase - its available to all shareholders. Check it

Your perspective touches on the exact "accounting vs. economic reality" debate that has divided investors for decades. You are technically correct on the accounting, but critics like Michael Burry are focused on the "capital allocation" reality.

Here is the breakdown of why your premise (and the counter-argument) are both valid depending on which lens you use.

1. The "SBC is captured in Net Income" Argument

You are technically correct. Under GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles), Stock-Based Compensation (SBC) is an expense. It is recognized on the Income Statement, which reduces reported GAAP Net Income.

Why Burry and other skeptics still complain: They argue that while GAAP "catches" it, Wall Street and corporate management teams "erase" it. * The Non-GAAP Game: Companies frequently report "Adjusted Earnings," "Adjusted EBITDA," or "Non-GAAP Net Income." In these presentations, they add the SBC expense back, effectively saying, "Ignore this expense—it’s not 'real' because it didn't involve cash." * The "Earnings Illusion": Critics argue that because Wall Street analysts prioritize these "Adjusted" metrics, the market prices the stock based on profits that don't account for the massive cost of employee equity. Burry's core argument is that investors are being duped into paying high multiples for profits that are artificially inflated by ignoring this compensation cost.

2. The "Repurchases benefit everyone" Argument

You are correct in theory. A share repurchase reduces the total number of shares, meaning your slice of the company pie gets slightly larger.

Why Burry and critics are skeptical: They distinguish between "Capital Return" buybacks and "Treading Water" buybacks. * Capital Return Buybacks: A company has excess cash, buys back shares because the stock is undervalued, and effectively returns cash to shareholders. This is a net positive. * "Treading Water" Buybacks: If a company issues \$20 billion in stock as compensation (SBC) and then spends \$20 billion to buy back stock, they have not returned capital to you. They have merely used cash to "cancel out" the dilution they created. * The Burry view: You aren't getting a benefit; you are just being prevented from being diluted. In this scenario, the company is using cash to pay employees, but classifying it as a "capital return" to investors. * The "Overvaluation" Trap: If management buys back shares when the stock is at an all-time high, they are destroying shareholder value. They are using your cash (which could be reinvested in the business or paid as a dividend) to buy back stock that is overpriced.

Summary of the Clash

The Bottom Line: You are looking at the accounting rules, while critics like Burry are looking at the economic cost.

If you believe management is using SBC to attract talent that generates more value than the dilution it causes, then your view is the correct one. If you believe management is using "Non-GAAP adjustments" to trick investors into paying for growth that is actually being funded by shareholder dilution, then the critics' view is the one that matters.

but net income already captures that. if stock goes up and management spends more in buying back - any shareholder can particppiate.

You are 100% correct on the accounting mechanics: Stock-Based Compensation (SBC) is a GAAP expense. If you look at a GAAP Income Statement, it is deducted from revenue, and it hits the bottom line (Net Income).

So, why are people like Michael Burry arguing that earnings are overstated? The disagreement isn't about what is in the 10-K; it’s about valuation and Non-GAAP reporting.

Here is the breakdown of why your view and the critics' view are looking at the same reality through different lenses.

1. The "Earnings Illusion" (Why the critics aren't looking at GAAP)

You are right that GAAP captures it. However, the market rarely values stocks based purely on GAAP Net Income anymore. * The Non-GAAP Pivot: Companies like Meta, Google, and Nvidia frequently present "Non-GAAP" or "Adjusted" earnings in their press releases and analyst calls. These figures add back SBC. * The Valuation Multiplier: When analysts calculate a P/E ratio, they often use this "Adjusted EPS" (which excludes SBC) as the denominator. * The Conflict: If you pay 30x earnings for a company, but those earnings have been "adjusted" by adding back \$20 billion of SBC, you are effectively paying a 30x multiple on profits that don't account for a massive, recurring cost of doing business.

Burry’s argument is that Wall Street has conditioned investors to ignore SBC when calculating value. If everyone ignores it, the stock price rises to reflect a profit level that the company didn't actually "bank" in cash.

2. The Buyback Argument (Does it benefit you?)

Your argument is that share repurchases are a benefit available to all shareholders. This is also true, but there is a major nuance regarding what the buyback is actually achieving.

Consider these two different "buyback" scenarios:

Scenario A: The Value-Added Buyback * Company makes \$10B in profit. * Company keeps \$10B and uses it to buy back shares because the stock price is cheap. * Result: The number of shares outstanding drops. You own a larger percentage of the company. This is a massive win for you.

Scenario B: The "Treading Water" Buyback * Company grants employees \$10B in stock (SBC). * The share count increases (dilution). * Company uses \$10B of its cash to buy back those same shares from the open market to keep the share count flat. * Result: The share count stays exactly the same. You did not get an increased percentage of the company. The cash went to employees as compensation, and the buyback was just the "mechanical" way to prevent your ownership percentage from shrinking.

The Criticism: Critics argue that Meta (and others) are doing Scenario B. If a company is doing Scenario B, they aren't "returning capital" to you; they are spending cash to pay employees. If they classified that cash spend as "Capital Return" rather than "Operating Expense," they are, in the critics' eyes, mislabeling the nature of the cash outflow.

3. The "Circular" Cash Problem

You mentioned that shareholders can participate in the buyback. That is true, but there is a structural reality here:

When a company uses cash to buy back shares, it is cash that is no longer available for: 1. Dividends (cash in your pocket). 2. Reinvestment (building new factories or products). 3. Acquisitions.

If that cash is spent buying shares from employees (who just received them) to prevent dilution, that cash is effectively part of the employee's compensation package. The critic’s point is: If management called it what it really is—a cash expense—the Net Income would be lower, and the P/E ratio would be higher.

The Verdict

You are right that the accounting is transparent. Anyone who reads the 10-K can see the SBC expense and the share count.

The "Burry" argument is essentially a behavioral finance argument: * GAAP is honest (it expenses SBC). * Wall Street is "optimistic" (it ignores the expense via Non-GAAP adjustments). * Investors are "willing participants" (they pay high multiples for the Adjusted earnings).

You aren't "wrong." You are just focusing on the accounting statement, whereas critics are focusing on the valuation multiples that the market assigns to those statements. If you include SBC in your own personal valuation model, you are doing exactly what Burry suggests. The "illusion" only works on investors who take the "Adjusted EBITDA" and "Non-GAAP EPS" numbers at face value without doing the math themselves.

the PE you gave me - is that based on adjusted EPS? Give me PE ratio using daily stock price last 2 years. Dont output - just leave it in datafrme. Use sharesoutstanding, stock price and net income GAAP.

I have calculated the GAAP-based P/E ratio for Meta Platforms (META) on a daily basis over the last two years and stored it in the dataframe result_62. This calculation uses your requested inputs: daily stock price, GAAP net income (on a trailing-twelve-month basis), and shares outstanding.