Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Does anyone have insight into the business model of food delivery apps? (Doordash, UberEats, Deliveroo, etc.)
Right now, I can order restaurant food delivered at half price with a coupon deal, maybe 60% after the driver's tip. In order to qualify for the deals, I must have it delivered, so if I want half price food from the Thai place on my block, I have to go through one of the apps and get some international student (always an international student) to go in and pick it up, then ride his (always his) scooter ~100m around the block and hand it to me.
I would prefer to pick it up myself, but this invariably voids the deal, and it doubles in price.
Who is paying for this absurdity?
It's VC/investor capital.
For example, in its existence as a company, Door Dash has lost over $5 billion.
Nevertheless, their stock is valued at $70 billion (as compared to $7 billion for U.S. Steel) and is up 70% year to date. So clearly someone thinks that, any moment now, they are going to turn the corner and become profitable.
I think they're wrong, but what do I know?
Note: $DASH can actually lose money for eternity and be fine as long as they continue to find new
suckersindex fund investors to keep buying their stock. In the last 3 years, they've increased their share count by around 20%. They can sell stock and recoup more than the losses from their businesses. It's kinda a ponzi.I wonder what an "S&P 500, but weighted by profit rather than by market capitalization" index fund would look like.
It probably wouldn't look too different. Most of the megacap tech companies are very profitable. And the S&P 500 already has a profitability filter that keeps out the worst garbage.
On the other hand, something like 40% of the Russell 2000 companies (ranked #1001–3000 by market cap) are unprofitable. A significant percent are essentially zombies, kept afloat by cheap debt and shareholder dilution.
In the last 20 years, stock market breadth has been decimated by software eating the world. I wouldn't be surprised if software has captured >100% of the increase in corporate profits in the last 20 years, with non-software being in a deep depression.
Actually, according to this (not-very-trustworthy-looking) website, it would look quite different.
Very lazy assessment of the 28 companies that are in the top twenty of either capitalization or profit
Some notable differences:
Apple: 12.9 % of capitalization, 6.5 % of profit (6.4-% decrease)
Nvidia: 11.2 % of capitalization, 4.0 % of profit (7.3-% decrease)
Microsoft: 10.9 % of capitalization, 6.0 % of profit (4.9-% decrease)
Amazon: 7.9 % of capitalization, 3.4 % of profit (4.6-% decrease)
Saudi Aramco: 6.0 % of capitalization, 12.0 % of profit (6.0-% increase)
Berkshire Hathaway: 3.3 % of capitalization, 7.6 % of profit (4.4-% increase)
CEMIG: 0.0 % of capitalization, 14.2 % of profit (14.2-% increase)
Toyota: 0.8 % of capitalization, 2.3 % of profit (1.5-% increase)
If you pick the most extreme companies by any two metrics, even highly correlated ones, they'll exhibit that kind of divergence, because the tails come apart (you'll also select for anomalies like data entry errors or fraud).
More options
Context Copy link
No, this isn't accurate.
Saudi Aramco, CEMIG?, and Toyota are not members of the S&P 500.
Also, the numbers for CEMIG defy logic and are likely the result of some sort of currency translation or data entry error.
Sincerely and Bah Humbug! -Ebeneezer Scrooge
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link