Slashdot Mirror
Why Amazon Is Profitless Only By Choice
An anonymous reader writes "Eugene Wei, a former employee at Amazon and Hulu, explains why Amazon continues to post quarterly earnings statements with lots of revenue but no actual profit. Many of Amazon's retail businesses and platforms are quite profitable by themselves, Wei says, a fact that is hidden by large expenditures on investment for the future. He writes, 'If Amazon has so many businesses that do make a profit, then why is it still showing quarterly losses, and why has even free cash flow decreased in recent years? Because Amazon has boundless ambition. It wants to eat global retail. This is one area where the press and pundits accept Amazon's statements at face value. Given that giant mission, Amazon has decided to continue to invest to arm itself for a much larger scale of business. If it were purely a software business, its fixed cost investments for this journey would be lower, but the amount of capital required to grow a business that has to ship millions of packages to customers all over the world quickly is something only a handful of companies in the world could even afford. ... I'm convinced Amazon could easily turn a quarterly profit now. Many times in its history, it could have been content to stop investing in new product lines, new fulfillment centers, new countries. The fixed cost base would flatten out, its sales would continue growing for some period of time and then flatten out, and it would harvest some annuity of profits. Even the first year I joined Amazon in 1997, when it was just a domestic book business, it could have been content to rest on its laurels. But Jeff is not wired that way. There are very few people in technology and business who are what I'd call apex predators. Jeff is one of them, the most patient and intelligent one I've met in my life.'"
In the moral confusion promoted by global capitalism, "apex predator" became a term of approval - even among the prey.
It is hard to hate someone who provides such a great service.
And I do not see any Monopoly like actions, like MS has done in the past. just peerless competition.
I have not seen them stifling other competing services, just competing and winning against retail. It is not their fault that retail does not seem willing to change to compete, and that no one is decent launching Amazon-like services.
It is like Steam, sure they have a monopoly, but it is not their fault.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
It is hard to hate someone who provides such a great service.
This. Amazon has changed business for the better. When I was a kid anything bought via phone or mail was "allow 4 to 6 weeks for delivery". Only with Amazon did this finally change to 2 or 3 days. Now Amazon is investing heavily to provide same day delivery. What a gigantic difference. Others now provide delivery this quickly but only because they can't compete with Amazon otherwise.
So far Amazon has been a great example of Capitalism's good points (except for maybe refusing to collect state sales tax until recently). I'm surprised to see all this hate.
The Amazon warehouses are run like sweatshops. There are some other more detailed articles out there, if you can find them. The working conditions are horrendous and the pay abysmal, and nearly all of it temp work. So, while on the surface the service might be great, it comes at a cost. There is a reason they're able to undercut and drive out the local businesses which actually pay their employees and provide benefits.
That's wrong. If a company buys assets, then it's profits decrease, but it definitely doesn't make your stake in the company any less valuable. Since stock prices reflect both the current assets of the company (after all stocks express owenrship on these assets) and the expectation of future gains (that's the speculative part), it is quite sensible for the stock price to go up for a company that invests instead of making profits.
Amazon opting to be flat, effectively at 0% margin
No, Amazon is not operating at 0% margin. Amazon is generating healthy profits from its business. But it is choosing to reinvest those profits rather than either pay them out as dividends or pile them up in the bank.
The idea is to endure long enough to starve out competitors until monopoly acheived. At that point, rather obscene profit can be reaped.
Since the basis of your argument is factually incorrect, there's really no reason to go into this, but I want to. Your conclusion "At that point, rather obscene profit can be reaped" is a common assertion of predatory pricing theories... but one that doesn't really seem to actually exist. In the last few decades courts have added a test for predation that requires that there be a realistic prospect of recouping the losses due to predatory pricing in the ensuing period of monopoly rents. After courts adopted that test, no antitrust litigation based on a predation theory has succeeded, because it's extremely hard for anyone to rationally believe that losses will be recouped.
Why? Two reasons.
First, predatory pricing is ruinously expensive. Far more so for the would-be monopolist than its targets. This is because in order for a company to be in position to execute such a play it must already own most of the market, which means that the net effect of the below-cost prices it sets get multiplied by the volume it already does, plus the new share that it acquires from its targets.
Second, assuming the monopolist does manage to drive out all competition, and begins charging obscene prices, it becomes not only possible but very profitable for competitors to enter (or re-enter) the market. Actually, because of this, if the competitors have access to good capital markets it's unlikely that they'll be driven out of business at all, because everyone will recognize the higher prices which are to come and so capital will be available to enable the competitors to survive the price war.
So-called "post-Chicago" theorists have been able to construct some narrow scenarios in which predatory pricing is rational, but they're very narrow and ultimately boil down to circumstances in which the competitors can be successfully bluffed by the would-be monopolist.
Note that all of this is distinct from a different scenario, in which the big player isn't being anti-competitive at all, but is instead is just much more efficient, and therefore has much lower costs. That sort of "monopolist" can maintain healthy profit margins while pricing goods below what the competition can afford. This, however, is not harmful to consumers, in fact it's good for consumers. Of course there's the possibility that once the competition is driven out the monopolist will raise prices while retaining its low costs. Should that ever happen, then that would be an appropriate time for regulators to step in. I'm not aware of any real-world examples, though.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.