3 ms·
> a naive way to think about pricing (though it's probably consistent with the way finance people think about it) you don't understand finance, and why it has
by fsckboy 5y ago
> a naive way to think about pricing (though it's probably consistent with the way finance people think about it)
you don't understand finance, and why it has to work the way it does, hence your naive thinking :)
when a manufacturer sells a product to a distributor, the mfr ships the goods but they don't get paid right away, they get paid later. Invoices are marked "net 10" or "net 30" or "net 60", where the numbers refer to how many days the buyer gets to pay the bill after receipt of the goods. (length depends on your credit worthiness and potentially the goods in question, dairy for example is perishable)
And the same goes for the distributor selling those same goods to the retail merchants. (and, with credit cards, the same goes for the consumer buying the item)
but let's go back to the mfer above: they've sold the goods, but they haven't been paid... and they still need to manufacture more goods to have on hand for the next order that comes in, and they need to keep paying rent on the factory, and they can't just lay off all the workers till the money comes in and then rehire them, and they don't want to tell new customers to wait for their orders.
So the manufacturer has to buy more raw materials and keep the lines operating. So they go to the raw materials suppliers and say "hey send us more stuff, so we can manufacture more, we promise we'll pay you later" and the raw materials supplier said "you said that with the last order and you haven't paid it yet" and the manufacturer says "well we didn't get paid yet..."
so, as you can see, already there is debt ("financing") at every stage of the supply chain. Now consider that the manufacturer has introduced a product that's growing in popularity, and growth is the goal if you want to make more money and or spread your costs. In this instance the manufacturer is asking his suppliers for a double or triple order of supplies, because the retails and the distributor are clamoring to double or triple their orders over the previous orders... that they haven't paid for yet.
To smooth this process out, these different entities go to their banks and say "hey, I can sell triple my previous orders if I can just borrow some money short term, demand is so good that I can pay you interest". And the bank says "yes, borrow the money, it's the same interest rate, but borrowing triple at the same rate is triple the interest you have to pay, right?"
or the bank might say "that's waaaayyy too much money to borrow, look someplace else" and the manufacturer might instead be forced to sell stock on a stock exchange, giving partial ownership to investors in exchange for the cash they need for expansion.
This is why banks exist; this is why the stock market exists; and this is why it is not naive but incredibly sophisticated how finance works.
Most people on HN love to hate on MBAs, but this is just what they teach you in the first couple weeks of your first accounting class, a tiny piece of the curriculum.
For anybody who really wants to grok thinking this way, I'd highly recommend a book titled "The Goal" by Eliyahu Goldratt. It's written as a novel, it's a breezy and fun read with some deep ideas in it.
EDIT: addressing the complaint about something I susposedly left out: When you want to start a company, you need some seed money for a computer, a chair, a desk and a place to sit. If you are going to manufacture, you need equipment; if you are going to sell, you need space to store and display.
This entails money which you get from somebody else who will want interest, with higher interest for higher risk; or which you fund yourself from your savings but you were making money on your savings which you need to forego (cost of capital) so that's essentially the same thing. And when you are successful and expand, at some point you run out and need to go outside to finance anyway.
It has nothing to do with fixed percentages of profit on goods or services. Instead look only at the flow of money and what you are required to pay your financiers. You can tell your financiers "I'm willing to make less profit, so charge me less interest" but they will say back "you're making less profit? you just got riskier, we need to increase your interest rate"
if less profit is charged at any stage in the chain, that stage will have less money to reinvest in the next round of growth, and will need to borrow more. Sellers are not choosing their own profit margins, these numbers come from market bid-ask norms.
- seneca 5y agoNothing you said in this post addresses why margins need to be a relative percentage instead of an absolute amount, which what the post you're responding to brings up. You seem to be talking about the general concept of credit. I understand that there's an unstated "every dollar you spend costs you X in financing", but that's not clear from your post. I'd also strongly suggest Goldratt's lectures, titled "Beyond the Goal" over the Goal itself, as the novel is pretty thin on useful information comparatively.
- fsckboy 5y ago> Nothing you said in this post addresses why margins need to be a relative percentage instead of an absolute amount 1. nothing you said here refutes anything I did say. 2. you made no case for margins that would be independent of costs 3. I did make a case for why at least a portion of margins would would be relative to costs, which would make margins relative to costs. 4. also I did mention equity which means I did go beyond credit, and equity rates of return vs credit rates of return are the same math, it's just the discussion of financial risk that I left out because it is a complex subject also I added an addendum based on your criticism. You should say how you think this should work so people can learn from you.
- antattack 5y agoI am guessing it's due to ROI. Your more expensive product requires higher profit for ROI to stay the same.
- user_named 5y agoIt's actually because retail markup is about 2.5x on top of wholesale. The difference pays for rent, salaries, marketing, margin for discounts, and so on.
- tfehring 5y agoThe reason I don't think of myself as a finance person isn't that I don't understand finance. I've worked in the finance industry for six years; I haven't worked on the supply chain or logistics side, but I'm well aware of how invoicing and accounts receivable work. I understand that lowering the gross margin would increase both the cost of financing and the amount to be financed (both in absolute terms and as a proportion of revenue). That does further increase the price you need to charge in order to break even with offshore manufacturing, but again, the idea that you need to get back to the same gross margin irrespective of demand elasticity to break even with offshore manufacturing is silly.