ClownLoach wrote: ↑December 22nd, 2023, 12:09 am
The shareholders aren't going to notice? They impounded nearly A BILLION DOLLARS that would have otherwise been EARNINGS. They definitely noticed. This is not a little plaything anymore. They have blown an incredible amount of money on this money losing operation and had to take out additional debt just to avoid a cash flow crisis. You better believe the investors noticed that a company as huge as Amazon suddenly had liquidity issues. And 100% of it was hung on the retail division.
For Amazon, a billion dollars works out to about 9 cents per share. That is completely trivial.
Amazon's liquidity issues are due to higher labor and shipping costs in their $300 billion online retail operation, not because of their little chain of 40 supermarkets.
That is trivial until it isn't. When isn't it? When they have a surprise earnings miss. When costs suddenly explode. When people cut their buying on Amazon because a lot of the purchases are discretionary and people are running out of money due to all the price increases occurring (wait for 01/2024 when all the insurance price hikes hit everyone). When people cut Amazon Prime because it is "one of those subscription services they can live without."
So sure, it is trivial... they buried it... you are okay with their explanation and note it is only 9 cents a share of loss... for now.
Also they keep throwing money at it... and it keeps floundering. They will probably have to write it down again...
At some point shareholders will demand answers for why the company keeps burning money on these retail operations.
You noted that Fresh unit you went to was busy- did you like the store? How was condition of perimeter? I really like the Long Beach Fresh; it is a nice store, perimeter is in good condition, I like it. But every other Fresh unit I've been into- I strongly dislike. Perimeters are in poor condition, aisles are too narrow, just terrible stores.
The piece that is being overlooked is that Amazon continues to move out of selling directly online. The percentage has been growing and now over 60% of those $300 billion are not Amazon but rather Marketplace sellers using their platform and that will keep growing. So for some insane and bizarre reason Amazon keeps reducing their successful e-commerce operations by effectively outsourcing the buying and selling (then taking a cut), and then they are trying to pivot and sink money into new operations like Fresh that are far less successful than the businesses they're in effect downsizing. Worse, even though they're not directly buying or selling as much product they're on the hook for the real estate investment, infrastructure investments etc. that they made to build all these warehouses they no longer have a need for and that is yet another burden on the P&L. They are making really irrational decisions and big investments that turn into big losses and write offs.
One more thing. The impairment for the Fresh stores and other layoff related expenses which were primarily retail wiped out half of the earnings for Q4 2022. 50% of the earnings gone and pushed the company to a loss. There is a mathematical error here in the comparison of this cost to revenues. It is a cost deducted from profits which is a massively different number. Amazon was fried by Wall Street and the reaction was so bad that the CEO had to personally speak on the earnings release, something that had not happened at Amazon since 2009. So I'm not getting this whole "9 cents a share" stuff as Amazon's entire year was pushed into a loss by these expenses. Revenue is not profit.
storewanderer wrote: ↑December 20th, 2023, 11:42 pm
Kroger got very lucky the COVID era came and caused its pick up service to take off. We don't hear much about the Ocado initiative anymore so that probably tells us how that is going. And from what I see their pick up business is very strong; in some stores they are definitely doing heavier pick up business than Target at the present time is and the other thing I notice with Kroger pick up baskets is those are full baskets of merchandise, very full... unlike Target where I see a lot of very small pick up orders.
Don't you think that's attributable to the fact that Kroger -- like pretty much every other supermarket, as well as Walmart-- has a $35 minimum for pickup orders, while Target has none?
storewanderer wrote: ↑December 20th, 2023, 11:42 pm
Kroger got very lucky the COVID era came and caused its pick up service to take off. We don't hear much about the Ocado initiative anymore so that probably tells us how that is going. And from what I see their pick up business is very strong; in some stores they are definitely doing heavier pick up business than Target at the present time is and the other thing I notice with Kroger pick up baskets is those are full baskets of merchandise, very full... unlike Target where I see a lot of very small pick up orders.
Don't you think that's attributable to the fact that Kroger -- like pretty much every other supermarket, as well as Walmart-- has a $35 minimum for pickup orders, while Target has none?
I think it's a perfect example of why Target also needs a $35 minimum. They have stores being completely broken operationally because they have too much payroll shifting to Drive Up orders and being taken away from basic cleaning, stocking and customer service. The fact that they use software now to pull orders starting in the back room might make it even worse as it encourages customers who see empty shelves to just order it online next time and cost them even more in labor. They have shifted nearly all the promotion activities back to brick and mortar, no more "save $10 on your Drive Up order" coupons, but the damage is serious in some stores that are being graded so hard on Drive Up fulfillment rates and times that the entire store looks like a bomb hit it as all management cares about is order pulling and packing.
This site is a battleground with the neighborhood and the developers competing. These developers don't care about WFM or CVS or any of the existing tenants and just want to use them since they are currently able to get around the building codes and zoning processes in an expedited manner if they make a project "mixed use." If those laws went away tomorrow they would be trying to evict both stores to make a few extra dollars on additional housing units since the value per square foot is so much higher. This is the outcome the developers would prefer versus the approved scaled back project. It looks like Regency is trying to develop the Kmart side and move WFM over while Holland Partner is trying to develop the existing WFM side and keep them. Based on what @veteran+ has reported this Kmart deal with Regency may be dead which makes sense as it's a less intensive use than the developers would like.
And now it seems that Amazon has halted WFM development which was the point of my post. I think Amazon is waiting for the outcome of the Kroger-Albertsons deal... I would not be surprised if they submitted a bid for Albertsons to merge it with WFM if the deal is halted by the FTC.
[/quote]
I'm just stating what it shows on the city's Planning and building department website, not the developers site. It still shows active and it still shows approved by Planning.. Yes, everyone knows L.A. has a history of these types of developments that don't come to fruition... Also, that Whole Foods is HIGH volume and yes I believe they would spend money for a better store even now. They have two stores on Fairfax, both are small and terrible. The one on Fairfax and Santa Monica is an old Alpha Beta that can't be expanded. The location at 3rd & Fairfax started as a Safeway in the 60's and then was a Ralph's and now a Whole Foods.
Bluelightspecial wrote: ↑January 29th, 2024, 4:09 pm
This site is a battleground with the neighborhood and the developers competing. These developers don't care about WFM or CVS or any of the existing tenants and just want to use them since they are currently able to get around the building codes and zoning processes in an expedited manner if they make a project "mixed use." If those laws went away tomorrow they would be trying to evict both stores to make a few extra dollars on additional housing units since the value per square foot is so much higher. This is the outcome the developers would prefer versus the approved scaled back project. It looks like Regency is trying to develop the Kmart side and move WFM over while Holland Partner is trying to develop the existing WFM side and keep them. Based on what @veteran+ has reported this Kmart deal with Regency may be dead which makes sense as it's a less intensive use than the developers would like.
And now it seems that Amazon has halted WFM development which was the point of my post. I think Amazon is waiting for the outcome of the Kroger-Albertsons deal... I would not be surprised if they submitted a bid for Albertsons to merge it with WFM if the deal is halted by the FTC.
I'm just stating what it shows on the city's Planning and building department website, not the developers site. It still shows active and it still shows approved by Planning.. Yes, everyone knows L.A. has a history of these types of developments that don't come to fruition... Also, that Whole Foods is HIGH volume and yes I believe they would spend money for a better store even now. They have two stores on Fairfax, both are small and terrible. The one on Fairfax and Santa Monica is an old Alpha Beta that can't be expanded. The location at 3rd & Fairfax started as a Safeway in the 60's and then was a Ralph's and now a Whole Foods.
[/quote]
Yep, both very high volume and nightmares! I would say 3rd and Fairfax is worse.
That area is so HIGH density with housing (including high rise properties) and shopping (3rd & Fairfax).
If I recall properly, 3rd & Fairfax had a few more occupants. Albertsons? Lucky/Savon?
