Eni...Dogs and Horses, for pussy's lovers only - Cap. 3
- Creatore Discussione Comoduca
- Data di Inizio
snapo
the greater the truth, the greater the libel
bene
snapo
the greater the truth, the greater the libel
e ci avevi ragione te ancora una volta
mi son giocato la evening...che va detto nn entra mai(come i ts ribax...)
la cosa mi è costata un bel 180 + spese...
e ci stava...
ci stava molto meno considerando che prima di un trade vado a contare i peli del culo di nonna e nonnetti...e avevo visto che il giorno di pernacchia tapering il dollaro aveva fatto una bella engulfing bearish
e siccome il tnote col cazzen può salire nel giorno di un engulfing bullish sul$(la bearish la stampò il neuro e per la proprietà inversa transitiva...dato che l'algo è uno e uno solo...)
era da idioti fare la mia scommessa...
almeno in un trading basato su statistiche...corsi e ricorsi...e...ammammata...
draghi ha mentito sapendo di farlo...e lo ha pure detto(abbiamo la consapevolezza di aver comunicato bene...ahaha) sa benissimo che quel"e oltre se serve" è una bugia...dato che il qe termina a settembre 2018 e lui toglie le tende a gennaio 2019
e così come nonna ha avuto il compito di alzare i tassi...al suo successore toccherà lo stesso
la differenza sta nel fatto che il tapering lo farà lui mentre pernacchia lasciò anche questa incombenza alla tartagliona
trimestrali big tech buone
magnifica al solito quella di gugo
bene anche le altre sebbene msft sia adesso a p/s 7(follia) dato che il tagliateste nadella fa utili un po' col cloud ma molto con 60k segati
ridicola al solito quella di amzn...che vende tanto...ma lo fa grazie alla guerra dei prezzi...che è una follia...magari li farà quando nel mondo nn esisterà + un retailer
si attendevano 5 centesimi capito? buahahaha
da un'azione che ne costa mille il massimo che si ottiene sono 4/5 dollari annuali(ieri 0.50)
ma va bene così
buondì
The United States of SCAmazon
The Market Ticker ® - Commentary on The Capital Markets
2017-10-27 20:55 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 3028 references
The United States of SCAmazon
[Comments enabled]
Refer to the table in this article -- note how Amazon is turning nearly a negative 20% margin on goods sold not including SG&A (that is, their sales and administrative expenses, such as the buildings and their employees) but only counting the cost of goods sold and their fulfillment (shipping and warehousing) expense.
I wish to note that generally cross-subsidizing is legal provided it's not done for an unlawful purpose.
For example it is legal to sell something as a "loss leader" to get people into your store in the hope that they will buy a profitable product or service (which makes enough profit to cover the cost of both), whether that other sale takes place at the same time or somewhere down the road. There's nothing illegal about using a "teaser" product to get people to shop with you, in short.
However, if the purpose of said intentional selling at a loss is to destroy competitors in your market and you have the market power to do so that's against the law under the Sherman Act. In fact, it's a felony.
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Note that you not need to do this between two or more companies -- it is entirely illegal to do so within the walls of one firm alone.
Corporations exist for one purpose alone -- to make a profit. This does not mean that every firm succeeds in making a profit, of course. In point of fact 8 out of 10 new firms fail within five years as they are unable to meet the essential test of "business" -- turning a profit.
But look at this, which is an extension of the table I created earlier -- it goes back more than five years and is taken from the SEC's filings made by Amazon.
Date Sales COGS Sales/Cog % Fulfillment Net % Profit
2013/Q1 13271 11801 12.46% 1796 -326 -2.46%
2013/Q2 12752 11209 13.77% 1837 -294 -2.31%
2013/Q3 13808 12366 11.66% 2034 -592 -4.29%
2013/Q4 21072 18806 12.05% 2918 -652 -3.09%
2014/Q1 15705 14055 11.74% 2317 -667 -4.25%
2014/Q2 15251 13399 13.82% 2382 -530 -3.48%
2014/Q3 16022 14627 9.54% 2643 -1248 -7.79%
2014/Q4 23102 20671 11.76% 3424 -993 -4.30%
2015/Q1 17084 15395 10.97% 2759 -1070 -6.26%
2015/Q2 17104 15160 12.82% 2876 -932 -5.45%
2015/Q3 18463 16755 10.19% 3230 -1522 -8.24%
2015/Q4 26618 24341 9.35% 4546 -2269 -8.52%
2016/Q1 20581 18866 9.09% 3687 -1972 -9.58%
2016/Q2 21116 19180 10.09% 3878 -1942 -9.20%
2016/Q3 22339 21260 5.08% 4335 -3256 -14.58%
2016/Q4 30629 28958 5.77% 5719 -4048 -13.22%
2017/Q1 23734 22440 5.77% 4697 -3403 -14.34%
2017/Q2 24745 23451 5.52% 5158 -3864 -15.62%
2017/Q3 28768 27549 4.42% 6420 -5201 -18.08%
This is Amazon's sales of goods (ed: Before attacking this table, read the italicized portion at the bottom.)
Their top-line margin (simply sales divided by cost-of-goods sold) has gone from 12.46% to 4.42%, a collapse of approximately 65%, over that period of time. At the same time their operating loss not including general and administrative costs, nor marketing -- that is, just the cost of the product and "fulfillment", has gone from -2.46% to -18.08%, an explosion of more than 730%.
The argument could be, of course, that there are "other than COGS" in that number. Well, ok, but read on below and then keep trying to find a scenario under which that claim fits for material components of that figure.
You see, what's most-interesting in the table is that in approximately the third quarter of 2016 the company basically gave up and surrendered, essentially "throwing a switch", removing 500 basis points of markup over cost in a step function that has no rational explanation among any change in the mix of products and services sold that occurred at the same time. I have not seen one word out of the analyst community (or the company for that matter) on this. In fact all the analysts have been "cheering" on the "acceleration" of the firm's prospects and results, with the stock price going from $700 then to $1105 today. Yet it appears that Amazon went from losing 10% on all the goods it sold to 18% or nearly double the loss during that same time period. The latest escalation in loss during the most-recent quarter is associated with ramping fulfillment expense (up 35% in one quarter against a 16% sales increase) which the firm tried to "dull" by taking another 110 basis points off its "cost" markup!
The company now, it appears, loses approximately one dollar in five whenever someone buys a "thing" from Amazon.
This is not some startup attempting to claw its way into relevance; it is a mature firm that employs tens of thousands of people and yet over the last five years it certainly appears it has been incapable of growing its sales of physical product without losing more and more money on each and every sale. Instead of finding itself with a near-zero stock price both analysts and the media trumpet how "successful" the firm is at being a retailer! Thanks in no small part to the fawning that the media and analyst community has served up upon a credulous public and their intentional burying of the truth the stock price has more than quadrupled from roughly $250 in early 2013 to over $1,100 today.
It certainly appears that Amazon has "purchased" their increase in the gross sales of goods by literally giving product away at an ever-increasing loss -- a loss that has now reached nearly 20% across the entirety of nearly thirty billion dollars in goods sold last quarter.
Given the amount of data Amazon has and the utterly-stunning percentage of loss they're taking in that regard I'm willing to bet that a nicely-aimed subpoena would show that the company is well aware that the only way they could continue to grow sales to any material degree is to displace existing retailers by intentionally selling at that ever-increasing loss -- and that this is exactly what they're done.
More to the point there is nothing else Amazon sells to consumers that can possibly make back the $5.2 billion dollars lost last quarter through this practice, so any argument that this tactic amounts to a "loss leader", given more than five years of history, is almost-certainly an easily-proved lie. Specifically, subscription services (including Prime membership fees, digital video and music, e-book, etc), many of which are sold to consumers, account for only $2.4 billion in gross receipts last quarter. Amazon does not break out the cost of those services and they have always refused to itemize them but even allowing for a very large (e.g. 50% or more) margin those services cannot possibly be profitably cross-subsidizing the loss on product sales; there simply isn't enough money received from them to do so.
Therefore the purpose of such an increasing, five+ year ramping change in intentional operating losses in the company's product sales segment, assuming it is as it appears to be, has to be called into question.
The effect of these actions, however, on other companies in the consumer product space is not open to question -- witness the myriad and daily mention of various retail channels and individual retailers being "Amazoned" in the media and on conference calls. In the latest point of attack which I assume the company will also apply this "strategy" to Amazon is apparently attempting to enter wholesale prescription drug sales.
It is perfectly legal to out-compete other sellers by doing more with less and thus having a lower cost structure in your business. This in turn allows you charge a lower price and gain market share. That, in fact, is exactly what innovation and competition (otherwise known as "productivity improvement" in the economic field) is supposed to do.
It is not, however, legal to cross-subsidize the sales of your products with another, disjoint services business within your company so as to allow you to sell products at an intentional loss for the purpose of putting others out of business in an attempt to monopolize sales.
The financials disclose that the funding source for Amazon's practices in general is AWS service sales, a completely disjoint service (from the perspective of the consumer who has no reason to buy or use such a service) that happens to be quite profitable on a free cash-flow basis.
Not one person within a state or the federal government has come after Amazon for this pattern of conduct in inquiry of why they are engaged in behavior that I can find no rational explanation for within the boundaries of lawful and fair competition as disclosed to both the public and regulators by their published financials and operating results.
In fact, the pattern strongly suggests that Jeff Bezos and Amazon are using AWS as a vehicle to intentionally drive competitors out of the market in the sale of goods not by out-competing them in cloud computing services but instead by destroying competing retailers of goods through rapidly-accelerating cross-subsidization and intentionally selling goods at a loss which they know their competitors cannot do.
I remind you again that attempting to monopolize trade is a felony.
buona domenica
