https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhAxKX2X0s4WyHwGyc54Rt1wfdXjZhzaE π Balance Sheet Analysis (Million TL) • Cash & Equivalents: 13.21 → 9.80 (-25.84%) • Total Assets: 75.93 → 82.77 (+9.01%) • Total Liabilities: 4.03 → 3.80 (-5.63%) • Net Debt: -63.86 → -71.42 (net cash position improved) • Shareholders’ Equity: 71.90 → 78.97 (+9.83%) π° Income Statement Analysis (Million TL) • Net Sales: 63.06 → 50.39 (-20.10%) • Cost of Sales: 32.50 → 33.92 (+4.35%) • Gross Profit: 30.56 → 16.47 (-46.10%) • Operating Expenses: 9.79 → 10.76 (+9.95%) • EBITDA: 22.14 → 8.47 (-61.73%) • Net Income/Loss: -5.85 → -13.19 (loss deepened) π **Key Highlights:** • Net sales declined by 20% YoY. • EBITDA dropped by 61%. • Net loss more than doubled. • Equity increased by 9%, maintaining a strong financial position. π΅πΊπΈ #EUYO | Euro Securities 2025/9 Earnings Analysis | Financial and Operational Results π§Ώ https://www.kap.org.tr/tr/Bildirim/1507946 https://www.kap.org.tr/tr/Bildirim/1507947
What can a company report and a philosopher’s cabin teach us about life? Four surprising lessons
Introduction: Meaning drawn from two different worlds
In the chaos of modern life, we all search for a kind of manual — something that tells us where to find meaning, what to value, and how to take control of our lives. To find these answers, we often turn to self-help books, biographies, or spiritual texts. But what if the answers are hidden in the most unexpected places — in two documents that seem completely opposite? One is the cold, number-filled annual report of an investment partnership traded on Borsa Istanbul; the other, a book about the wooden cabin of one of the 20th century’s most controversial philosophers.
At first glance, Euro Menkul KΔ±ymet YatΔ±rΔ±m OrtaklΔ±ΔΔ±’s financial statements and Martin Heidegger’s solitary life in the Black Forest might seem to have nothing in common. Yet, when we read these two contrasting documents side by side, we discover two surprisingly deep and contradictory “user manuals” for living. One tells us how to manage the world; the other, how to exist within it. Here are four surprising lessons we can draw from these two different worlds.
1. Who really holds control? Lessons in power from a boardroom and a cabin
One of modern life’s most fundamental questions revolves around the concept of control. Who has it, and how is it achieved? Two radically different answers can be found — one in a company’s ownership structure, the other in a philosopher’s retreat.
The annual report of Euro Menkul KΔ±ymet YatΔ±rΔ±m OrtaklΔ±ΔΔ± (EUYO) provides a striking example of how ownership and control can be artfully separated in modern finance. The company’s structure shows that 99.66% of its shares are publicly held. The remaining 0.34% belongs to Mustafa Εahin. Yet this small stake, classified as “Class A privileged,” grants 1,000 votes per share in board elections, while publicly traded Class B shares receive only 1 vote. Thanks to this intricate legal framework, Mustafa Εahin, who owns just a fraction of the capital, controls 77.10% of the voting power — a masterclass in external, structural control built through complex systems.
By contrast, philosopher Martin Heidegger’s mountain cabin represents an entirely different understanding of control. The 6x7-meter wooden hut was his escape from the chaos, expectations, and noise of the “world below.” Through radical simplicity and isolation, Heidegger achieved complete control — not over others, but over himself and the conditions of his own thought. One model centralizes power through intricate legal design; the other achieves mastery through withdrawal and inner discipline.
2. What is “value”? 74 million TL in net assets — or the murmur of a mountain spring?
How do we measure our lives? What defines success or worth? To this question, EUYO’s financial balance sheet and Heidegger’s philosophical reflection offer entirely different answers.
According to EUYO’s annual report, as of September 30, 2025, the company had a net asset value of 73,681,729.39 TL — a precise, numerical representation of “value.” Yet, in the same period, it recorded a loss of 13,192,743 TL. This reveals a fundamental paradox in finance: value measured in numbers does not always equate to prosperity, profitability, or genuine wealth. In this world, value is quantitative — embodied in assets, liabilities, and equity.
For Heidegger, however, value lay far outside this financial logic. In his cabin, the things he valued could not fit into any balance sheet: the sound of water flowing from the spring above the slope, the cycle of the seasons, the roar of mountain storms, and the view of the valley. True value, for him, was found in direct contact with nature and in the authentic labor of peasants. He expressed it like this:
“Philosophical work belongs right in the midst of peasant work. When the young peasant drags his heavy sled up the hill... then he is engaged in the same kind of work as mine. Philosophical work takes root in what belongs directly to the peasants.”
We thus have two different “balance sheets”: one listing assets and liabilities in TL, and another grounded in the murmur of water, the turning of seasons, and the simplicity of labor.
3. The world as a workspace: A corporate office and a 42-square-meter “world of work”
The spaces we inhabit for work not only shape what we do but also how we think and relate to the world. In this sense, EUYO’s office and Heidegger’s cabin represent two completely different universes.
EUYO operates from a corporate office in Ankara’s business district of Γankaya — structured, hierarchical, and efficiency-oriented. Like the report itself, it embodies order, function, and measurable outcomes. It’s a place designed for work to be done.
Heidegger’s 42-square-meter cabin, by contrast, was not just a shelter but a consciously designed “world of work.” Consisting of three rooms (study, kitchen, and bedroom), positioned to face the south with windows overlooking the valley, and furnished sparsely, it formed an architecture of thought. The cabin was not merely a place where philosophy was written — it was part of philosophy itself, an organism that shaped and nurtured thinking. One is a site of doing; the other, a world of being.
4. The illusion of simplicity: “Bonus” shares and a complex past
Finally, both worlds teach us to question the complexity hidden beneath apparent simplicity. Whether in finance or philosophy, simple words can mask deep structures.
In EUYO’s report, the planned 200% bonus share issuance stands out. To investors, “bonus shares” sound simple and attractive — a free gift. But beneath that simplicity lies a complex accounting mechanism that does not actually increase the company’s value. The process merely reallocates existing equity reserves into paid-in capital — a technical restructuring, not value creation. The word “bonus” conceals an illusion of gain.
Heidegger’s cabin, too, hides complexity beneath its surface simplicity. At first glance, it symbolizes retreat, authenticity, and harmony with nature. Yet behind this pastoral image lies a troubling moral history: Heidegger’s membership in the Nazi Party complicates the purity his philosophy seems to advocate. For visitors like Holocaust survivor Paul Celan, the cabin was not only a sanctuary but a site of tension — a place haunted by contradictions. The ideal of “simple living” thus masks a deeper ethical struggle.
Both examples remind us to look beneath appearances. In finance, “bonus” hides a technical reshuffling; in philosophy, “simplicity” can veil moral ambiguity.
Conclusion: Writing your own manual
A company’s report and a philosopher’s cabin present two radically different blueprints for building a life. They intersect across four dimensions: external versus internal control, material versus existential value, functional versus holistic space, and apparent simplicity versus hidden complexity. One is built on efficiency, structure, and growth; the other on meaning, simplicity, and depth.
Somewhere between these two extremes, we all construct our own lives. Perhaps the greatest lesson from these two documents is this: we must write our own manuals — consciously, deliberately, and truthfully.
So, in your own personal balance sheet, which values weigh most heavily — and what does the architecture of your own “world of work” look like?