Amazon Becomes First Company Ever To Lose $1 Trillion In Stock Value (gizmodo.com) 169
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Gizmodo: Amazon, one of the first companies to join the prestigious $1 trillion dollar valuation club, just passed another, admittedly less desirable milestone. This week, Jeff Bezos' Everything Store became the first publicly traded company to lose $1 trillion in market valuation. The mind boggling figures, first noted by Bloomberg, are the results of a worsening economy, repeatedly dour earnings reports, and massive stock selloffs. Amazon, valued at $1.882 trillion on June 21, on Thursday reported a comparatively measly $878 billion valuation. Microsoft, which briefly surpassed Apple as the world's most valuable company last year, wasn't far behind, with market valuation losses hovering around $900 billion. Combined, the two companies' declines capture the effect of a lousy year most in tech would like to soon forget.
Those declines aren't just limited to Amazon and Microsoft. The top five most valuable U.S. tech companies reportedly lost a combined $4 trillion in value this year. To put that in perspective, that's more than the combined GDPs of Turkey, Argentina, and Switzerland. Amazon, in particular, disappointed investors last month with third quarter revenues that failed to meet expectations. Worse still, the company said it's expecting to post fourth quarter year-over-year growth of just 2-8%. That's fine for a normal company, but there's nothing normal about Amazon which was, until now, a relentless growth machine. Like many other companies Amazon's also had to contend with declining e-commerce shopping as consumers, less concerned with covid-19, begin to trickle back into retail stores. "There is obviously a lot happening in the macroeconomic environment," CEO Andy Jassy said following the third quarter earnings report. "And we'll balance our investments to be more streamlined without compromising our key long-term, strategic bets."
Those declines aren't just limited to Amazon and Microsoft. The top five most valuable U.S. tech companies reportedly lost a combined $4 trillion in value this year. To put that in perspective, that's more than the combined GDPs of Turkey, Argentina, and Switzerland. Amazon, in particular, disappointed investors last month with third quarter revenues that failed to meet expectations. Worse still, the company said it's expecting to post fourth quarter year-over-year growth of just 2-8%. That's fine for a normal company, but there's nothing normal about Amazon which was, until now, a relentless growth machine. Like many other companies Amazon's also had to contend with declining e-commerce shopping as consumers, less concerned with covid-19, begin to trickle back into retail stores. "There is obviously a lot happening in the macroeconomic environment," CEO Andy Jassy said following the third quarter earnings report. "And we'll balance our investments to be more streamlined without compromising our key long-term, strategic bets."
For some real perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
U.S. tech companies reportedly lost a combined $4 trillion in value this year. To put that in perspective, that's more than the combined GDPs of Turkey, Argentina, and Switzerland.
Apples and oranges. Valuation is the hypothetical dollar amount one would have to pay to buy a company. GDP is a real figure, representing the real value of actual stuff actually sold by a country within a year.
It's like saying "I'm selling my Yugo for $50,000. To put that in perspective, that's more than Bob makes in a year". Well yeah, but my valuation for the Yugo is bullshit - just like most corporate valuations - while Bob's salary is a fact.
Re: (Score:2)
On that note, this guy lost 500 billion British pound in 7 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:For some real perspective (Score:5, Informative)
Yup. Some years ago I did some work for a startup and was promised $x million worth of stock, which I just saw as funny money and never took seriously. Eventually they tanked and the stock became worthless, so in theory I both made and lost x million dollars.
Except that it was all imaginary so I never lost anything. The employees who thought it was all real weren't so fortunate.
Re: (Score:2)
Mod parent up, probably as Funny. I found it on the mention of "funny", but I was initially looking for something like:
Today's price assigned to this company's shares is just a matter of opinion. Not a guarantee of future performance.
Or maybe not even an opinion. The stock price might be a glitch in a high-speed trading program, and everyone knows that computers don't have opinions. Real value? We don't need no stinkin' value to buy and sell billions of shares!
How's you like to buy some nice quatloos instead?
By the way, anyone else get purged from Facebook recently? I was barely using it and I still can't imagine what hideous crime I might have committed or even been accused of having committed. The purge email didn't give me a hint, so I guess I'm happy to save the five minutes some days.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you should more reasonably have looked at it as a lottery ticket. There was a small chance that it would pay off, but most start-ups fail. (OTOH, the promise of "$x million worth of stock" was clearly garbage. x% of ownership of the stock of the company would be a valid thing to promise. (Though such promises tend not to be honored if the company is successful. The VCs object.)
Re: For some real perspective (Score:5, Insightful)
You're sort of right but not 100% (Score:2)
The metrics are indeed different things, but your characterization of what the market value of a company represents is wrong, and can not be compared with something like a Yugo. The market value of a company represents the combination of (a) the liquidation value of all of its current assets, (b) the sum total of *ALL* future expected earnings (profit) - until the end of its existence.
The liquidation value of a company is how much all of it's physical assets, as well as it's intellectual property, would be
Re: (Score:2)
If that theory doesn't match reality, then how is it justifiable?
Look at housing. Would anybody claim the value of a house is simply the price of rebuilding it if it burned down? No. Its value is its resale value, which due to supply & demand is some
Re: (Score:2)
It's value to who? When you talk of something like a house, the "market value" is not the same as the value to the person living in it. And there is no valid conversion factor. (Dollars doesn't count.)
This doesn't really apply to a large company, but the value of holding the stock is often a lot different than the value of selling the stock. And not just because of capital gains tax. It can easily depend on how much you *currently* need cash.
Re: (Score:2)
I never claimed to me "justifying" anything or making any moral arguments. I am countering the idea that market value of companies is "made up", or can be compared to the price of a scooter. Neither of those things are objectively true.
RE your last point - retirement funds and those who want to store wealth, have millions of stocks they can choose from. The stocks that get chosen for that are those with higher expected future earnings. It is as simple as that.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with your points, mostly, but many retirement funds consider current earnings (dividends) as much or more than speculative future earnings (potential growth). Especially for older folks like me who will retire in the near future.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's the cost of a fire. The value of my house is to give me shelter & privacy.
No. It's resale value is its' market price, not it's value. The market price is only relevant as cash value to the owner the day it gets sold. The rest of the time its' value
Good to see (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice to see some air being let out of the tech stocks after being overinflated for so long.
Re: (Score:2)
What the world really needs is for all bubble to pop. Housing, bond, stock, wage and all other bubbles should burst, we need a good round of solid debt restructuring, lowering of prices and serious deflation (reduction of the fiat money supply).
What we will get instead will be more money printing (inflation), rising prices for energy, food, all sorts of commodities, but also due to ever increasing inflation we will see more growth in the bubble sectors like housing and simultaneously we will see fewer and
Re: (Score:2)
There's a wage bubble now too? Did I miss something important?
Re: Good to see (Score:2)
I think there is a salary (monthly pay) bubble, but not a wages (hourly pay) bubble.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if that's what the market pays? If it wouldn't, companies couldn't pay that kind of wage or would perish if they do. Apparently they can and are willing to.
Re: (Score:3)
Hundreds of thousands a year for coding websites and game apps? I would say there is.
If the websites or games make more than that, then you're provably wrong. This is my surprised face. I thought the rule was whatever the market will bear? Now you want it to be whatever the ruling class wants it to be? GTFOH
Re: Good to see (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Nice to see some air being let out of the tech stocks after being overinflated for so long.
Totally. To put it in perspective, Amazon's net income has hovered around ~10-20 billion for the last few years (it was a lot less before that, but hey ho). So to 'earn out' the hypothetical value lost on the stock in the last year, it would need to continue in it's current form for around the next 50-100 years.
This is why western companies do not really care about producing medium-long term results. Who wants to have to slog through 50-100 years of keeping a company relevant and profitable when you can jus
Re: (Score:2)
Context LOL (Score:5, Funny)
That's, uhm, quite a perspective? It's probably also more than the combined cellular atomic count of epiphyllum oxypetalum, dendrophylax lindenii, and calceolaria uniflora. How's THAT for perspective?
Re: (Score:2)
"That is more than the number of people who will attend your funeral"
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they should stop (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Knowing Amazon, you can have shipment only but it will cost the same.
It's a start (Score:2)
The best thing people can do is stop buying crap from Amazon. No one needs that much Chinese-made junk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People need some Chinese-made junk, just not all that utter crap they fill their houses with.
Re: (Score:2)
Just do better (Score:2)
Few moments later footsteps are heard at Bezos' home. ding dong Mister Bezos? I have a delivery for you. * rips open pack to find a bunch of empty bottles *
Units! (Score:2)
A company's value is its value at a point in time. GDP is an amount for a given time period.
It's nice to compare big numbers but isn't this a bit like comparing speed to acceleration?
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, Musk! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Layoffs in 3... 2... 1... (Score:4, Funny)
Red wave turned into a pissy dribble.
Re:Layoffs in 3... 2... 1... (Score:5, Insightful)
Red wave turned into a pissy dribble.
Red wave aborted, now it's just a light spotting overlaid on a skidmark.
Re: (Score:2)
The claims of waves have come from both sides over the years, sometimes at the same time. I think it springs from having bubble. All your friends and family all seem to have the same political ideas, so clearly you're going to win since you don't know anyone at all who would vote the wrong way. But at the same time the polls are showing uncertainty. There's a big gap in the middle for the mythical undecided and swing voters. So you multiply the certainty by the uncertainty to get the result that there'
Re: (Score:2)
When there are two wolves and a sheep voting about what's for dinner, the well armed sheep leaves peacefully and shoots the wolves if they follow him..
If the wolves try to prevent this, or look about to, the sheep might shoot them first.
Nobody lets themselves be eaten for 'Democracy' because not being eaten is more important than others enjoying a 'Democracy' you are not a part of because you've been eaten.
Democracy is for coexisting. If that's impossible there is no reason to allow yourself to stop existi
Re: (Score:2)
I hate to feed this non sequitur, but you put your finger on it. American democracy is only tolerable any more in so far as it means "you" (the royal you) win. Otherwise it will be discarded since it's no longer feeding "your" purpose.
And that's fine. Hopefully this puts an end to the endless trumpeting of American exceptionalism... but probably not. In a world where people self-reflected, the falling of the last bastion of what American's hold dear should start that process.
Re: (Score:2)
This reminds of a letter to the editor during the Yugoslavia breakup and civil wars. Someone who claimed to have been raised in America but with Serbian ancestry defended the ethnic cleansings. Their rationale was that they didn't want to have a democracy where someone from a different ethnicity might win. It was seriously the most un-American thing I have seen, a fundamental misunderstanding of what democracy is or should be. If someone claims that democracy ony works if they win, then they're not real
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who is it that is supposed to stop existing in this election? Nobody is being cleansed, there is no "replacement", that's all a fantasy.
Re: (Score:2)
One better alternative might be a democracy with a different electorate ( that's what the open borders people want and have been getting - an electorate that suits their agenda ) Those who disagree with that agenda want a democracy with the electorate they had before.
Re: (Score:2)
I will add that illegal immigration is and has been just that - illegal. It's something outside democracy because it is outside the law. The solution may have to come the same way. A breakup/ national divorce with more or less drama. The solution to irreconcilable differences in a marriage ( especially since it's more of a rape ) is often divorce
Re: Layoffs in 3... 2... 1... (Score:2)
I support legal immigration and non-aggressive immigration policies. I do not support open border but think Trump's wall is mostly a waste of money and just something to stroke the ego.
Make it easier and chea
Re: (Score:2)
Look how close you came to reality! You're almost there! Let me give you a little boost.
Your wall is a stupid and pointless waste of money. It's an international joke for a reason.
A real way to reduce illegal immigration is to go after the people who hire illegal immigrants. It's simple, cheap, and effective.
Do you know why we don't? It's not that hard to figure it out. What does that tell you?
Oh, there is also a compassionate solution that will dramatically reduce illegal immigration, but that involv
Re: (Score:2)
Frankly, the wall is a waste of money as there is a cheaper more effective solution that I would prefer. Mines. The wall is a compromise. If the border were mined, nobody would try crossing. If they did, they did it to themself
Re: Layoffs in 3... 2... 1... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We need to bring back the Guillotine for anyone who hires an illegal. Quick Trial.
Fine with me. https://time.com/4465744/donal... [time.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Um... Seeking asylum is legal, so asylum seekers wouldn't be illegal immigrants.
Re: (Score:3)
I will add that illegal immigration is and has been just that - illegal.
Oh, you're a racist. You also don't know how immigration law works, or that it's legal to enter the country for the purpose of seeking asylum. How fucking boring.
You're correct that it's legal to seek asylum but it's just used as a catch-all that's lost all meaning. The large majority of people attempting to immigrate to do so illegally in stealth, claim asylum only if caught, and - if given the opportunity - disappear off the radar abandoning their asylum case. Calling someone racist over pointing out actual illegal actions is nothing more than woke virtue signaling. Step off your pedestal and rejoin reality for 5 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
There aren't "open borders" people. Republicans and Democrats both want the borders regulated, presidents from both parties have strengthened the borders Yet this claim that illegal immigrants are being bused across in order to vote has been around even in the 70s. The fact is that these immigrants come because there are jobs given to them by people willing to break the law. When I was growing up it was the farmers doing this, who were *strongly* conservative. Even Trump has hired many illegals in his
Re:Layoffs in 3... 2... 1... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hearsay is not evidence, Youtubes are not evidence, and above all, Agolf Twitler posts are not evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
I had to laugh that at soon as reports of some ballot printing machines had some snags one of the candidates immediately reported that there were 2 hour long lines at the polls, and then retracted that very quickly. It's like there was a knee jerk reaction to just start lying as soon as possible. Absolutely nothing anyone can say on voting day itself will change any outcomes, so it's just lying out of habit rather than trying to gain any votes.
So many normal things that happen in all the elections are see
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Massive election fraud again.
You mean Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression? We noticed.
Re:Layoffs in 3... 2... 1... (Score:5, Insightful)
AMZN has a long way to fall. Their P/E is 79, even after losing a trillion in value. This isn't Biden's fault. It shouldn't be so high to begin with.
Re: Layoffs in 3... 2... 1... (Score:2)
Agree. It's obscene. This perverse extreme capitalism is going to kill itself, if it doesn't kill us all first.
Re: Layoffs in 3... 2... 1... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's tax payer socialism for the rich. Not Capitalism. In Capitalism the losers go bankrupt. In our current system the losers get bailed out with tax payer money and keep all the upside for themselves.
Privatize profit, socialize risk
Re: Layoffs in 3... 2... 1... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In our current system the losers get bailed out with tax payer money and keep all the upside for themselves.
Can you point to any examples of this happening?
Note that the bank bailouts after the subprime mortgage debacle is not one; those were all loans, and were all paid back, generating net profits for the taxpayer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
generating net profits for the taxpayer.
Also, please explain what the fuck a taxpayer profit is and what that looks like.
Re: (Score:2)
Not "socialism". Because bailing out corporations is not socialism, and socialism is not a synonym for tax bailouts or taxes or welfare, etc. Socialism means the *workers* own the means of production. So corporate bailout is only corporate socialism if the companies being bailed out were worker owned or maybe the corporation becomes state owned, etc.
Now if this bailout meant that the government took a controlling interest in those corporations, a seat on the board, etc, then that could marginally be cons
Re: (Score:2)
I think "capitalism" is about allocating capital, investors putting their money where their mouth is.
It is not. It is about capital controlling the means of production, full stop. That is literally the definition. All the other stuff you believe about capitalism is either stuff you made up to feel better about living in it, or stuff made up to delude you about how it works.
Re:Honestly? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism is SUPPOSED to be about allocating capital, but since all of Smith's warnings about the need for regulation and passing out corporate charters VERY sparingly and only with a short leash have been ignored, it's become well-heeled hucksterism at best.
The rich have a strong social safety net both formal through bailouts and informal through connections that won't let them fail. When a CEO yet again runs a company onto the rocks and has another chair in an executive suite pulled out and waiting for them before they even bail, that's the safety net at work. When a public company is flaming out and the stock market bends over backwards to arrest the freefall, that's the safety net. When a rich scumbag with dirt on all the other rich scumbags mysteriously 'commits suicide' while on suicide watch, that's the safety net. When an international bank gets caught red-handed supporting terrorists and drug cartels and nothing happens, that's the safety net.
Re: (Score:2)
re: By that measure the upper crust of the USSR was very "capitalist".
I wouldn't say they were capitalist, but they sure weren't "Communist" (Marx-Lenin), or even "communist" (various small communes). Either "gangster" or "oligarch" comes closer.
P.S.: I'm not arguing that they *could* have been communist (either form). That system doesn't scale. But please use words properly.
Re: (Score:2)
Kleptocracy [wikipedia.org]
Kleptocracy is a government whose corrupt leaders use political power to expropriate the wealth of the people and land they govern, typically by embezzling or misappropriating government funds at the expense of the wider population.
Re: (Score:3)
Consider for a moment that most wealth is inherited, not earned. Capitalist society expects people who have never made a thing in their lives to know enough industry to be able to allocate resources effectively? Its much much easier to simply rent seek on top of your inherited capital than it is to turn your capital into something productive for the rest of us. For example, stock buybacks are much much easier than doing R&D for a new product, producing it, and selling it.
Re: (Score:2)
We've never had a system where the fuckups lose and the better product or company succeeds. The mediocre very often rise to the top in capitalism (and socialism). Being a successful corporaiton in not about how good your product is, but in exploiting openings, leveraging, marketing, backstabbing, bribing, lots and lots of luck, etc. Survival of the fittest doesn't really apply, maybe more important is adapting quickly to changes, and adapting quickly often means having access to capital. Access to capit
Re: (Score:2)
Your grandma and grandpa just called me. They say they have been sold on your view of economy and would like to move in with you. You do have room, don't you? BTW: their meds are expensive, so you better start saving now seeing as you'll be rejecting Medicare.
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that he's rejecting socialism. His categorization is correct, but I see no evidence that he's rejecting it.
Socialism is the government acting to support people for the social good. It includes such things as public roads, free (basic) medical care, etc. Many people support such a system, even if they've been hoodwinked to reject anything with that name. Most of the actual arguments are over to what extent socialism should be implemented. Few want to reject, e.g., public roads.
The major
Re: (Score:2)
> It includes such things as public roads, free (basic) medical care, etc.
Democracy is where YOU decide if it's worth it to have these things paid for by taxes. Socialism is where GOVERNMENT decides for you. As a whole, we still live in a Democracy, but we are starting to see enclaves of public positions becoming appointments, much like a socialist country. The way many of our representatives vote (even in the face of massive public protest) shows they're acting more Socialist than Democratic. The amou
Re: (Score:2)
Democracy is not an alternative to Socialism, as they operate in different areas. You can be both democratic and socialist. You can also be totalitarian and socialist. I'm not sure you could be both anarchist and socialist, but it might be possible.
Roads are a given, but public access to roads isn't. Certainly free public access to roads isn't a given, or you wouldn't have toll roads. IIRC, during the feudal times is was quite common for usage of roads to be quite limited, and not "open to the public".
Re: Layoffs in 3... 2... 1... (Score:2)
Yes, even big bubbles burst! Never learned that lesson before.
Re: (Score:2)
Even after the layoffs, most of these companies are larger than they were in the beginning of 2022
https://www.macrotrends.net/st... [macrotrends.net]
https://www.macrotrends.net/st... [macrotrends.net]
Looks like a good time to score a bargain.
Re: Layoffs in 3... 2... 1... (Score:2)
I am sorry that you are holding AMZN purchased any time in the last 4 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems Quantitative Easing pumped up more than Bitcoin. Bitcoin has no bottom till it's crabbed there for a year or more, but maybe the bottom is when enough layoffs commence forcing more Quantitative Easing and hyperinflation. Silver Ends the Fed lol.
Re: (Score:2)
The stock market is not the economy.
The economy is a circle: people work for businesses, producing goods and services, to earn money which they spend on purchasing goods and services from businesses in order to live out their lives.
The stock market is speculative: money is exchanged for stock, which is then exchanged for a different amount of money. It produces nothing other than money.
The stock value of many companies is overinflated, and past due for a correction. We currently have too much money, and to
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody loses or gains anything until the company is actually sold. As long as Bezos keeps his company, not a single dollar changes pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Bezos sells rather a lot of Amazon stock, on a pre-declared schedule, to keep Blue Origin going.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But the company sells itself every day, whenever it offers an employee stock-based compensation.
Re: (Score:3)
Nobody loses or gains anything until the company is actually sold. As long as Bezos keeps his company, not a single dollar changes pocket.
Every time a stock changes in value it is because of recent market activity, which is what sets the stock price. So a stock ticker cannot reduce in value unless buyers and sellers are actively trading the stock. Each of these buyers are gaining stock in the company, and each seller is gaining cash from the sale of their stock.
Even those who are not actively trading their stock are gaining or losing something when a stock fluctuates. They are at the least gaining or losing potential collateral.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The "reason" was because they now have a 1 trillion dollar tax write-off.
Companies can't "write off" equity losses from a falling stock price, nor do they pay taxes on rising stock prices.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon is making $3B/qtr in profit. There are no operating losses and no "write-offs".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's my exact same thought. We've not heard as much from the wealth tax proponents this year as the market has been tumbling. It just shows the idiocy of class warfare and 'paying your fair share' trying to tax unrealized gains that can come and go in a matter of months. Pretty much all the 'obscene' gains made in '21 have been wiped out. It's not real money until it's dollars in a bank account.
Re: (Score:3)
The billionaires would be taxed based on the new, lower valuation.
You can get taxed based on the market value of the house you live in so why not equity.
Re: (Score:2)
Partly because governments want to encourage investment. Partly for the same reason that houses and lands are called "real property" (or "real estate") -- the reason has nothing to do with real vs fake, but with the legal rules for that kind of property compared to the rules for personal property.
Re: (Score:2)
There are multiple reasons for it but one of the effects is that some people amass unimaginable amounts of wealth
Re: (Score:3)
The best way to make it work is to charge corporations income tax, not profit tax.
You still let them write down purchases of supplies, so it's not like they have to pay taxes on their full income — just the profitable part.
However, we still need a one-time wealth tax in order to kickstart the system. I propose that the fairest way to wealth tax stocks is to just take a percentage of shares.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet, municipalities have no problem putting a tax on someone's home based on some arbitrary "value" even though said "value" of home fluctuates up and down every year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How does this work for pro wealth tax idiots? The ones who think share value is the same as cash, even though a wealth tax is physically impossible to pay because there isn't money backing up the value of company shares.
If you lack the funds to pay the tax on your owned shares of stock, you can sell some of your stock to generate the funds needed to pay the the taxes due.
Shifting to a type of taxation where a % of the value of stock owned is due each year as opposed to only taxing it's appreciated value at the time of sale would reduce accumulation of wealth in private hands while increasing taxes paid thereby reducing government debt as well as preventing popular tax-avoidance schemes in executive pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think Bezos is Scrooge McDucking into a fucking fault filled with 30 billion dollars?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)