←back to thread

689 points taubek | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
hx8 ◴[] No.43633780[source]
> But if we bump the cost of freight, insurance, and customs from $5 to, say, $28, then they wholesale the shoes to Footlocker for about $75. And if Footlocker purchases Nike shoes for $75, then they retail them for $150. Everyone needs to fixed percentages to avoid losses.

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.

replies(18): >>43633824 #>>43634076 #>>43634140 #>>43634174 #>>43634187 #>>43634256 #>>43634280 #>>43634377 #>>43634446 #>>43634484 #>>43634560 #>>43634764 #>>43635127 #>>43635686 #>>43637131 #>>43640232 #>>43642701 #>>43644645 #
matt-p ◴[] No.43634174[source]
In theory, you're right, however it ignores some key points;

-Some of their costs are in fact linear based on the cost of the item.

Inventory cost doubles, perhaps now they have to take out higher interest debt to finance that. Things like insurance would also at least double.

Transaction fees (like card fees at about ~2%) and other parts (like returns risk) also increase linearly.

-Reduced sales due to increased prices.

If an item is less affordable people buy less of them. Theft will also go up. If trainers were $100 a week ago and are now $200 - you will sell less, they will be stolen more.

All in you actually do need more than the fixed $50 of margin if the wholesale cost of the item changes from $50 to $100 - it may actually be that $100 is the correct number, or even too little - sales volume would concern me the most, particularly on this 'luxury' item.

replies(4): >>43634529 #>>43634665 #>>43643311 #>>43643313 #
1. runeks ◴[] No.43643311[source]
> Inventory cost doubles, perhaps now they have to take out higher interest debt to finance that.

I'm pretty sure Footlocker doesn't borrow money to pay Nike up front for inventory. Nike is smart enough to know that there's zero chance their shoes will be sold if they sit in a warehouse, so Nike might as well ship them to retailers and get paid gradually as the shoes are sold to consumers.

replies(1): >>43643956 #
2. jmull ◴[] No.43643956[source]
That's just a for-instance.

The general point is that additional cash is tied up in shoes which cannot do something else. Who bears the burden of the loss of that additional cash changes over time (Nike to Footlocker to consumers) but the burden is bourn.

(And that's before you count the impact of the inevitable reduction in unit sales. There're various kinds of overhead that don't scale linearly units sold, or that have a long lag before scaling, or have a significantly-sized step function in the scaling.)

BTW, where did the cash go? Oh yeah, into the hands of the US federal government. We have a word for that: tax.