This is a common trope in response but also false and actually illustrates the opposite. Amazon's losses were small and very quickly it was profitable. It also had very strong positive operating cash flow. The new crop of companies go for a decade+ unprofitable; very different.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
-
Sure, but also, there *have* been companies which managed to grow & be profitable while doing so. Amazon is a key example which often gets cited on the other side: unprofitability was brief, then profitability was minimal but clear core profitability & also strong investment.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I "lost" money on a house this year.
-
Except that no loss is generated by the purchase of an asset. Which helps to illustrate the financial illiteracy of so many of these lazy responses.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Amazon famously lost money for nearly 20 years. Aggressive growth costs a lot and is risky, but can ultimately pay off big.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Tried explaining this to my dad, who has an accounting degree. "The money's GONE! The company should disappear, investors lost all their money." he says.... "no, it's tied up in <investment/infrastructure/employees> to position for market lead, maybe monopoly"... he didn't get it
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.