3 ms·
I'm not an accountant, but when I want to understand corporate finance technicalities, I'll look up the definitions on investopedia.com. They do a pretty good j
by peller 10y ago
I'm not an accountant, but when I want to understand corporate finance technicalities, I'll look up the definitions on investopedia.com. They do a pretty good job of putting them into "layman speak." Revenue is what you think it means[0]: 10% of all the cash Amazon took in over a given period was from AWS. Operating income is "a synonym for earnings before interest and taxes"[1].
So, in effect what they're saying is that AWS is so profitable that it has been subsidizing loss-centers in Amazon's business.
Edit: I should add that Amazon has a history of not turning a very large profit (if at all), and instead choosing to re-invest income on growth and R&D. So the behavior itself is not all that newsworthy, it more just speaks to the importance of AWS.
[0] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/revenue.asp
[1] http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/operatingincome.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/operatingincome.asp
- dragonwriter 10y agoWhat it actually sounds like is that AWS is not a focus of the reinvestment in R&D Amazon is famous for. Whether it's unusual in this respect, or whether this is typical of established business units and they focus R&D on new opportunities, I don't know.
- peller 10y agoMaybe? That didn't automatically follow for me - the "more than 100%" is pretty vague. Could it not also hypothetically be that some of the AWS unit's profit gets reinvested into AWS, thus bringing down the absolute value for operating income whilst not violating the percentage relationship?