I don't understand this paragraph. If Footlocker was okay with $50 profit/shoe, why do they need to claim $75 profit/shoe in their costs per shoe go up? The costs of handling the shoes, retail space, advertising, and labor are all fixed.
I don't understand this paragraph. If Footlocker was okay with $50 profit/shoe, why do they need to claim $75 profit/shoe in their costs per shoe go up? The costs of handling the shoes, retail space, advertising, and labor are all fixed.
The market cares about dollar returned vs dollar invested. If some piece in the middle of the chain goes up and end customer prices go up as well, that doesn’t directly affect investors at all.
The way it could and likely will affect investors is if people start buying fewer shoes, but that is a different process than what you are describing.
If I’m off base can you help me understand what you are saying?
Now this analogy has a LOT of problems but the point is it directly affects investors, even if the interpolations inbetween are imperfect.
So basically the money a business uses to produce the next tranche of goods (so to speak) normally comes not from income from sales of the last tranche, but rather from external funding sources such as loans or capital injection from investors?
Is that really so common as to be universal and affect investor behavior like you suggest? Like for certain types of business, and especially for early stage businesses, I do expect this to be the case. But does it apply to the market broadly? Scary if so, since it seems like a destabilizing force.
Whereas a business that can figure out how to be paid significantly before it delivers can run on much slimmer margins.