1996: -$6.4m on $15.7m sales || 1997: -$32m on $147m sales || 1998: -$109m on $609m sales || 1999: -$605m on $1.63b sales || 2000: -$863m on $2.76b sales || 2001: -$412m on $3.12b sales
In 2002, as a forced result of the dotcom crash and stock market plunge (their ability to continue to fund such red ink was in question), they had to expedite getting to operating break-even and turned off the spending spree they were using to get big artificially fast. They turned a $64m operating profit in 2002 on $3.9b in sales. Positive operating income climbed to $440m by 2004.
Not really. They were profitable, they just invested heavily in infrastructure (warehouses) and developing new services (AWS).
Amazon lost about $2 billion in their first six years of operations.
And Walmart's online presence would be profitable now if they weren't investing heavily in infrastructure (20 fulfillment centers trying to catch up to Amazon's 110) and new services (online catalog to match Amazon's).
That's a really big claim. No, technically they were not profitable for several years. Then, in the last 10-12 years, you are right that they invested heavily in R&D and everyone knows that one story.
1996: -$6.4m on $15.7m sales || 1997: -$32m on $147m sales || 1998: -$109m on $609m sales || 1999: -$605m on $1.63b sales || 2000: -$863m on $2.76b sales || 2001: -$412m on $3.12b sales
In 2002, as a forced result of the dotcom crash and stock market plunge (their ability to continue to fund such red ink was in question), they had to expedite getting to operating break-even and turned off the spending spree they were using to get big artificially fast. They turned a $64m operating profit in 2002 on $3.9b in sales. Positive operating income climbed to $440m by 2004.