It's well written for its target audience, people who are used to reading financial analyses.

While I’ve seen a plenty of silly reports from big bank analysts, they usually have the advantage of not coming across like complete idiots when saying things like this

> We assign a preliminary A+ rating to the notes, one notch below Meta’s issuer credit rating,

It’s hard to get away with that when the report is attributed to a company and person which don’t seem to exist, hosted on some randos substack. Wording like that works way better when it comes from a sender with an address ending with @bigbank.com

Of course, the latter parts of the post (Disclaimer and Limitation of Liability) do reveal pretty definitively that this is obviously not intended to be a serious report.

As for the content itself? The author tries really hard to turn a whole lot of nothing into something, and horribly misinterprets the GAAP in the process.

Well, I guess it’s my turn to look stupid. The author actually has some pretty serious credentials https://stohl.substack.com/p/credentials-such-as-they-are

Hard disagree. I read a lot of well-written financial analyses and this isn’t it at all.

The target audience is people who want to be angry at Meta and think that they’re smarter than finance people.

It's actually written quite well, you just have to understand the underlying financial documents and methodology.

Things that are hard to read because you lack context is not the same as poor writing.

No it’s not. It’s sarcastic, snarky, sneery content that appeals to a certain group.

The actual subject matter has already been covered well by good writers like Matt Levine, WSJ, and others.

> No it’s not. It’s sarcastic, snarky, sneery content that appeals to a certain group.

What on earth does your second sentence have to do with the quality of the writing? Try just a bit to separate your emotions from the text.

How does it not have anything to do with the quality of the writing? The writing is supposed to convey some facts, but it's too busy pushing narratives and layering on snark that it fails to convey real facts. Even in this comment section the people who applaud the article don't really understand what's happening because they soaked up so much of the narrative-pushing from the article.

this is the future of human-written articles - they will obligatory be written like this as 99% of article comments on HN these days is “oh, this is AI written.” :)

Don't say "I'm critical of AI", say "I have questionable motives"!