The information contained on the website you are about to access (Website) is for information purposes only and does not constitute and should not be construed as advice on which reliance should be placed, nor is it an offer by Absolute Return Partners LLP (ARP) to enter into any contract or investment agreement or a solicitation to buy or sell any investment in any jurisdiction or in any circumstances. Any information provided in relation to a specific fund is not intended to provide a sufficient basis on which to make any investment decision as any such decision requires careful study of the offering memorandum of the relevant fund.
No information on the Website is intended to amount to the financial promotion of Unregulated Collective Investment Schemes which are not authorized or recognised by the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and cannot be promoted to the general public. Any such information is intended solely for certain classes of investors permitted to receive it under relevant legislation and regulations, including investors falling within the qualifying categories set out the Conduct of Business Rules contained in the FCA Handbook or in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Promotion of Collective Investment Schemes) (Exemptions) Order 2005, in each case as amended or replaced from time to time. This is because such investors are sufficiently experienced and sophisticated to understand the risks associated with such investments, including the possibility of a substantial loss or complete loss of their investment.
As long as investors find it desirable to pay exorbitant amounts of money for companies that have never made a decent profit, you can understand the companies’ desire to pursue such a strategy.
The best known example of this would probably be Amazon. Despite having seen a huge increase in turnover, profits continue to be tiny. For that accomplishment, Wall Street has rewarded Amazon with a valuation of around $400 billion.
Amazon’s business model has ensured that it cannot earn a decent profit – at least not in the short term. Having said that, one could also argue that its business model has virtually guaranteed that nobody else can either. In the mid-1990s, before Amazon entered the stage, U.S. department stores generated decent profits (3% of sales on average). They no longer do. So the disruptor doesn’t earn much money, and the disrupted earn no money at all. Now, that is what I would call a disruptive business model.
The obvious winner is the consumer, who benefits from the ongoing pressure on consumer prices. How he or she will react when there are no department stores anymore, only time can tell. In the meantime, the ‘volume over profit’ business model will ensure that consumer inflation stays muted.
The head of a technology firm that designs and builds complex x-ray and scanning devices I spoke to the other day understands this dynamic well. “We are working with many billion dollar companies and everyone is saying – ‘We need Chinese volumes, Chinese prices and North European/North American quality and service’. At the moment, this is the recipe that works, how long it lasts is another matter.”
On the other hand, it could be that new entrants can exploit this. Many larger companies are trying to produce lower-cost products at high volumes. For large companies, with entrenched systems and culture, it is hard to overcome the inertia of the large organisation and so, they get caught in a vicious cycle - not enough volume to increase purchasing power to reduce costs and maintain quality to attract the volume business. And so the wheel spins.
Nevertheless, parts of the electronics industry are following the ‘Amazon model’. One only has to look at what has happened with TV prices and quality to see it. Is there a place for the Bang & Olufsens of this world anymore? Virtually everything out of China applies to this technique, with the solar panel industry being a prime example. China has decimated Germany in this field.