4 ms·

They most likely make up for it (the small loss or lack of profit) by selling other items, at least that's what happens at other companies applying the same str

They most likely make up for it (the small loss or lack of profit) by selling other items, at least that's what happens at other companies applying the same strategy. It evens out and they can boast about the huge number of SKUs they're able to offer.

milesskorpen 13y ago
... and they don't actually have to worry about actually making money. It's run as a charity for consumers paid for by investors.
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  Can you elaborate? Google Finance shows a profit of $631M for 2011, and $1.1B for the year prior, while only a loss of $39M for 2012. Their IPO is $1.50 compared to $332 today. Did they really take on so much investment that they still haven't made it back?
  - 001sky 13y ago
    The thing is, companies don't pay tax on sales, but on profits. And Amazon is a company with a very strange attitude to profit: it doesn't seem to like it. In the year 2012, it made a worldwide loss of $39m, even as it had sales totalling $61bn. That year was an aberration, with a costly acquisition weighing the company down, but previous years have been similar. 2011 saw just $631m net income on worldwide sales of $48bn, and in 2010 – the company's most profitable year to date – it scraped $1.15bn of profit on revenue of $34bn. 631/48000=? 1,15/34=? Those are your margins. If they are less than T+400bps[1] you are "losing money" for investors. Unless, there are other investors looking to take the stock off your hands. It's hard to imagine where all those investors think the extra profits will come from. Do they expect Amazon to suddenly announce one day that it has finished trying to grow, and will be raising prices immediately? Or do they think that eventually, every single one of its competitors will have given up, and folded beneath the company's relentless expansion? Unless you have a real answer for this, you are betting on the greater fool theory. Of course, you may have a better answe than this. [Digging around a bit, it seems to (/may) be tax avoidance. Amazon is eating fulfillment costs in lock-step with its increasing gross profits on product sales]. [1] technically, multiplied by another factor of around 1.8, which is the sales/asset ratio. This number appears to be <6%. http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2013/1/8/2164901-13576813760855193-Andr%C3%A9-Fernon_origin.png http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2013/1/8/2164901-...
    - MichaelGG 13y ago
      The parent to my comment stated it was a "charity" funded by investors. I've no idea if AMZN is a good stock investment. I'd just be surprised to find out that investors buying shares from the company have kept it afloat. People buying shares on the market doesn't give any money to Amazon and is rather meaningless in this context.
      - 001sky 13y ago
        I don't really have a bone in the fight, but to answer your question. In the world today, the company is governed by the extant investors (not the ones that give them money to start up or IPO). So the sentiments of those investors basically determine how the management gets compensated (how high the performance bars are, etc). In a normal world, the investors would tend to default to management provided that management is generating "returns on investment" in relation to the Capital at risk in the organization. For a compnay that is 15 years old+, its pretty odd to see a continual state of "strategic" losses. I don't think anyone is arguing that Amazon is stupid (investors or managment). The legitimate question is more like...what is everyon missing here?
        MichaelGG 13y ago
        I see your logic, but calling it "paid for by investors" is not accurate. Maybe "not run with aggressive short-term behaviour like some shareholders would like".
        001sky 13y ago
        This is a semantic distinction, between cost and opportunity cost. And the sentence is really just your imagination. The market is driven by quite sophisticated investors these days. You have to remember that hedge funds (as one example) are not mutual funds. They are in all kinds of illiquid complex stuff. There is plenty of depth for strategy that makes sense, and has longer term payouts. Again, the issue is more that Nobody appears to actually understand what that is. Or at least, nobody is talking about it. Wondering what that really is, again, is not short term thinking. Its more like sanity checking. That's why its worth playing devils advocate, occasionally. I'm actually sort of more curious to understand it myself after having looked at it a bit more today.

milesskorpen 13y ago

... and they don't actually have to worry about actually making money. It's run as a charity for consumers paid for by investors.

MichaelGG 13y ago
Can you elaborate? Google Finance shows a profit of $631M for 2011, and $1.1B for the year prior, while only a loss of $39M for 2012. Their IPO is $1.50 compared to $332 today. Did they really take on so much investment that they still haven't made it back?
- 001sky 13y ago
  The thing is, companies don't pay tax on sales, but on profits. And Amazon is a company with a very strange attitude to profit: it doesn't seem to like it. In the year 2012, it made a worldwide loss of $39m, even as it had sales totalling $61bn. That year was an aberration, with a costly acquisition weighing the company down, but previous years have been similar. 2011 saw just $631m net income on worldwide sales of $48bn, and in 2010 – the company's most profitable year to date – it scraped $1.15bn of profit on revenue of $34bn. 631/48000=? 1,15/34=? Those are your margins. If they are less than T+400bps[1] you are "losing money" for investors. Unless, there are other investors looking to take the stock off your hands. It's hard to imagine where all those investors think the extra profits will come from. Do they expect Amazon to suddenly announce one day that it has finished trying to grow, and will be raising prices immediately? Or do they think that eventually, every single one of its competitors will have given up, and folded beneath the company's relentless expansion? Unless you have a real answer for this, you are betting on the greater fool theory. Of course, you may have a better answe than this. [Digging around a bit, it seems to (/may) be tax avoidance. Amazon is eating fulfillment costs in lock-step with its increasing gross profits on product sales]. [1] technically, multiplied by another factor of around 1.8, which is the sales/asset ratio. This number appears to be <6%. http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2013/1/8/2164901-13576813760855193-Andr%C3%A9-Fernon_origin.png http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2013/1/8/2164901-...
  - MichaelGG 13y ago
    The parent to my comment stated it was a "charity" funded by investors. I've no idea if AMZN is a good stock investment. I'd just be surprised to find out that investors buying shares from the company have kept it afloat. People buying shares on the market doesn't give any money to Amazon and is rather meaningless in this context.
    - 001sky 13y ago
      I don't really have a bone in the fight, but to answer your question. In the world today, the company is governed by the extant investors (not the ones that give them money to start up or IPO). So the sentiments of those investors basically determine how the management gets compensated (how high the performance bars are, etc). In a normal world, the investors would tend to default to management provided that management is generating "returns on investment" in relation to the Capital at risk in the organization. For a compnay that is 15 years old+, its pretty odd to see a continual state of "strategic" losses. I don't think anyone is arguing that Amazon is stupid (investors or managment). The legitimate question is more like...what is everyon missing here?
      - MichaelGG 13y ago
        I see your logic, but calling it "paid for by investors" is not accurate. Maybe "not run with aggressive short-term behaviour like some shareholders would like".
        001sky 13y ago
        This is a semantic distinction, between cost and opportunity cost. And the sentence is really just your imagination. The market is driven by quite sophisticated investors these days. You have to remember that hedge funds (as one example) are not mutual funds. They are in all kinds of illiquid complex stuff. There is plenty of depth for strategy that makes sense, and has longer term payouts. Again, the issue is more that Nobody appears to actually understand what that is. Or at least, nobody is talking about it. Wondering what that really is, again, is not short term thinking. Its more like sanity checking. That's why its worth playing devils advocate, occasionally. I'm actually sort of more curious to understand it myself after having looked at it a bit more today.