3 ms·
You're right that Amazon has higher capex than income, however this has been intentional; I haven't been in finance for a while, and apparently this is how they
by alehul 9y ago
You're right that Amazon has higher capex than income, however this has been intentional; I haven't been in finance for a while, and apparently this is how they're doing it now, but the main point holds true of purposely avoiding income.
From an a16z partner:
> So, though we can’t be sure, it looks like the capex is not going up because Amazon’s existing business has become more expensive to run, but because Amazon is investing the growing pool of operation cash flow into the future. All of this brings us back to the beginning - Amazon’s business is delivering very rapid revenue growth but not accumulating any surplus cash or profits, because every penny of cash is being ploughed back into expanding the business further. But, this is not because any given business runs permanently at a loss - it is because the profits from what is already there are spent on making new businesses. In the past, that was mostly in operations, but in recent years the investment firehose has again been pointed at capex.
Source: http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/9/4/why-amazon-has-no-profits-and-why-it-works http://ben-evans.com/benedictevans/2014/9/4/why-amazon-has-n...
- kgwgk 9y agoIn case it's not clear, capex doesn't avoid income (at least not now). Capex is paid for with (after tax) profits, debt or new capital. Of course depreciation will reduce profits in the future, maybe you mean that. There is a bit of flexibility in when things are expensed, but there are rules. You cannot buy a building and expense it today. On the other hand, you can spend a lot in marketing or some forms of R&D and you have to expense them now (they cannot be capitalised, even though in fact the return on the investment will come in the future).