4 ms·
Cash Flow positive every year since 2003, not necessarily profitable. (Though the were profitable for some of those years, they weren’t necessarily).
by xkjkls 7y ago
Cash Flow positive every year since 2003, not necessarily profitable. (Though the were profitable for some of those years, they weren’t necessarily).
- dragontamer 7y agoAmazon was profitable for nearly all years after 2003. 2003: $35 Million profit 2004: $588 Million profit 2005: $359 Million 2006: $190 Million 2007: $476 Million 2008: $645 Million 2009: $902 Million 2010: $1,152 Million 2011: $631 Million 2012: $(39) Million <--- First loss 2013: $274 Million 2014: $(241) Million <--- 2nd loss 2015: $596 Million 2016: $2,371 Million 2017: $3,033 Million 2018: $10,073 Million ---------- Aside from 2012 and 2014, Amazon was both profitable AND cash flow positive. Amazon was Cash flow positive all 15 years in this time period as well. But I'm talking net profit / net loss here. IMO: there's no valid comparison to Tesla here. Amazon is not the company you want to compare against Tesla's performance. --------- Anyway, yes, Jeff Bezos sacrificing one year or two years of profits (over 15 years) for greater long-term growth could make sense. That doesn't actually mean its healthy for Tesla to consistently lose money for 10 years straight.
- xkjkls 7y agoI guess my major point is that Amazon didn’t need to consistently find new capital in order to keep the business afloat. Musk does. That’s partyly the distinction between cash flow and profit