Warren Buffett dumps $1.7B of Amazon stock
95 points
1 hour ago
| 16 comments
| finbold.com
| HN
xvxvx
1 hour ago
[-]
Maybe the novelty of Amazon has worn off. I occasionally purchase from their UK site, and it’s filled with tricks to get me to sign up for Prime upon checkout. Really horrible workflow and design decisions, cheapening the experience. I now see similar changes to the US version: ‘you saved $15 in shipping by being a Prime member with this purchase’ and ‘last year you made 211 sustainable product purchases’.

Guys, quit being so desperate. Concentrate on quality items at competitive pricing and fast delivery. Don’t turn into TJ Maxx.

My Echo, that I use solely to voice activating lights and switches, is now an ad machine and one bad day away from going in the trash. Next time you do a wave of layoffs, please include everyone involved in these horrible decisions.

reply
never_inline
9 minutes ago
[-]
Amazon has been quite useful for me as a single bachelor living in an Indian metropolitan city.

1. I get very useful items at very good prices, many of which I would have to wander the city for hours to find, or couldnt find at all: - Eg: I got a pair of adjustable dumbbells at <2K INR. Some of you would call it a cheap knock. But it has been super useful and I would have not bought it if it cost 8k INR. I brought a whole bosch repair toolkit at good price and it has been invaluable for fixing electric/plumbing etc.. issues. I got a high volume travel bag - I didn't even know 40L travel bags existed and wouldnt have brought one if not for amazon. I could go on.

2. Amazon Fresh is usually cheaper for groceries and maintain consistent quality compared to local supermarkets. I will also avoid the need to walk long with the grocery bag.

3. Electronics are significantly cheaper on amazon and again the need to search.

Maybe all of this can be even better as you said. But bottom line is that their operations look pretty efficient to me. Their catalogue is pretty much unmatched. (They may be losing money on retail business - but that's not my position to care as a customer. As other commenter pointed out, it may not even matter much for stock price.)

reply
wenc
1 minute ago
[-]
[delayed]
reply
evmaki
1 hour ago
[-]
> My Echo, that I use solely to voice activating lights and switches, is now an ad machine

I've been wondering if it is even possible for a publicly-traded company to deliver a voice assistant product without these incentives involved. I have to imagine the UX of these devices would be much different if they were built by a private company without the same market pressures. It would need to be self-contained and local, so that the infrastructure burden (e.g., data and AI in the cloud) wouldn't create a need for subscription service or data collection revenue to cover the cost.

reply
vablings
1 hour ago
[-]
This is why devices that are basically loss leaders should always be illegal. The end value product is an update that will come later down the line that screws everything up.

For those considering smart home devices, please just buy a home assistant device. It is easy for the non-technical and also not that much more expensive

reply
HanClinto
42 minutes ago
[-]
Home Assistant and other open-source projects seem like they may be the only way that we get consumer-friendly devices.

https://github.blog/open-source/maintainers/the-local-first-...

reply
aetherson
11 minutes ago
[-]
These just aren't the relevant concerns behind Amazon's stock performance in the last month. It's the capex.
reply
password54321
52 minutes ago
[-]
Amazon has become a marketplace for cheap sometimes harmful chinese knockoffs. Amazon doesn't even check what is being sold. I only order directly from places I trust. http://nbcnews.com/business/recall/cheap-chinese-faucets-dan...
reply
lysace
12 minutes ago
[-]
I still like to buy my cheap and esoteric Chinese stuff from Amazon. It's a good balance of not-too-slow-delivery and not-too-expensive for very specific stuff. And it's easy to return if it doesn't work.

Example last purchase: An optical SPDIF to 3.5 mm DAC box (5V/USB-powered) to put behind the TV with a broken/very low quality audio output. It was about $15 including 25% VAT. Probably like $5 on Aliexpress, but I didn't want to wait 6-8 weeks.

Never really buy anything costing more than $50 from them though.

reply
drstewart
1 hour ago
[-]
Amazon has become AliExpress at this point, so I just skip the middleman half the time
reply
vablings
1 hour ago
[-]
It's a shame that all these stores have such a terrible UI/UX.

Amazon is pretty good at optimizing buying things but outside of that everything else sucks really bad especially on mobile

reply
semiquaver
1 hour ago
[-]
Berkshire Hathaway has my favorite website (or, WEB page, as they style it) of any big company: https://www.berkshirehathaway.com/
reply
scottious
56 minutes ago
[-]
I half expected to see an "under construction" gif and a "powered by GeoCities" tag at the bottom
reply
forinti
43 minutes ago
[-]
It's definitely missing a website hits counter.
reply
meindnoch
1 hour ago
[-]

  <meta name="GENERATOR" content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18828">
*Jurassic Park taking off glasses.gif*
reply
leapingdog
1 hour ago
[-]
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

This brings back some (unpleasant) memories.

But otherwise I admire the minimalism.

reply
chickensong
1 hour ago
[-]
Incredibly clear and direct. Amazing to see a big company like that keeping it so old school. Thanks for pointing it out!
reply
buildbot
1 hour ago
[-]
I wonder how much Geico payed for that add placement…
reply
anana_
1 hour ago
[-]
They own GEICO...
reply
buildbot
47 minutes ago
[-]
Oh; well that’s embarrassing haha
reply
ewild
1 hour ago
[-]
he owns geico
reply
enmyj
59 minutes ago
[-]
it's certainly fast!!
reply
whatever1
15 minutes ago
[-]
There is only so much cash a company can burn.

Amazon spent last year 100B in Capex. They announced they will spend 200B this year. These numbers are INSANE. Greater than GDPs of entire countries.

They literally don't have the cash to do it. Either they need to grow their cash flow significantly, or deplete their cash reserves or take a huge loan (likely a combination of them).

Jassy is playing Russian roulette with the company and his career.

reply
Ekaros
2 minutes ago
[-]
Just considering alternatives on that sort of numbers. Billions just letting that money sit. And if you want more than that and actually to pay it back in say 10 or 20 years... Which I question with some capex stuff going around... It just doesn't make sense for my poor engineering brain.
reply
pgwhalen
5 minutes ago
[-]
> They literally don’t have the cash to do it.

I don’t understand this? Amazon is a profitable company, on the scale of tens of billions of dollars per quarter. They very literally do have the cash.

Am I missing some subtlety in their financial reporting?

reply
paxys
1 hour ago
[-]
Berkshire Hathaway, not Warren Buffett.

Large stock sales always make headlines but they don't automatically signal bearishness or really anything else. After all what's the point of investing if you never realize gains?

reply
drob518
1 hour ago
[-]
Yes, but you’d be foolish to realize your gains if you think the stock still has a long way to run. That just triggers taxes and eliminates any further upside. So, we can reasonably conclude that either BH thinks Amazon’s run is nearly exhausted, or it’s one of the stocks with minimal forward prospects in BH’s portfolio and they want to deploy the capital with something that they feel will have a greater return (maybe Amazon still rises, but whatever else they want to invest in they think will rise more/faster).
reply
ckardat123
18 minutes ago
[-]
Here is a Berkshire Hathaway portfolio tracker if anyone is interested:

https://www.quiverquant.com/institutions/BERKSHIRE%20HATHAWA...

Berkshire also sold around $2.8B of Apple stock, although that was a much smaller move as a percentage of their position.

reply
francisofascii
12 minutes ago
[-]
So 60% of this portfolio is in just 4 stocks? Apple, American Express, BofA, and Chevron. Didn't expect that.
reply
legitster
1 hour ago
[-]
Amazon's core business does not make sense. Despite being so massive, their retail operation makes almost no money. There is little market share left for them to win, the best they can do to grow is shave expenses.

AWS has been their real money maker, but also the explosion of AI and server farms has worked against them in threes ways: there is much more competition on infrastructure, the costs to run infrastructure keep going up, if you're looking for a growth industry there are other more appealing stocks now to park your capital.

reply
Aurornis
1 hour ago
[-]
> Amazon's core business does not make sense. Despite being so massive, their retail operation makes almost no money.

Net profit margins for retail are only around 3% across the industry.

Amazon isn't actually doing anything unusual in that regard. Retail is just a very low profit margin business whether it's physical or online.

These numbers are always confusing to those of us in the tech world where SaaS net profit margins are always very high.

reply
legitster
57 minutes ago
[-]
This is correct, but it doesn't explain why Amazon would have a 2x market cap over Walmart when they both roughly make the same revenue.

You have to believe that Amazon is poised for much higher growth than they are to justify their current stock price.

reply
agentcoops
2 minutes ago
[-]
Amazon's free cash flow rises year over year (apart from the post-COVID period) [0] while Walmart's doesn't [1] and price multiples are largely determined by expected FCF over time not directly revenue/EBITDA. FCF rain or shine maps roughly onto possibility of paying out dividends/buybacks, which determines the value of an equity in capital markets ("discounted present value of a company's future cash flows").

[0] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/free-c... [1] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/WMT/walmart/free-c...

reply
Aurornis
25 minutes ago
[-]
> This is correct, but it doesn't explain why Amazon would have a 2x market cap over Walmart when they both roughly make the same revenue

Because Amazon and Walmart are two different companies with very different product offerings.

Retail can only grow so far. AWS continues to grow at a relatively incredible rate compared to Walmart's business.

reply
jcheng
44 minutes ago
[-]
The revenue curves do indeed look a bit different:

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/stock-comparison?s=revenu...

Even more so if you compare EBITDA:

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/stock-comparison?s=ebitda...

reply
nickff
33 minutes ago
[-]
It seems like AMZN has significant growth priced-in to the stock, but retail growth will become increasingly challenging as their market share increases.
reply
tyre
53 minutes ago
[-]
These are different businesses. Walmart has a massive retail footprint, where Amazon does not.

Amazon’s huge 3p seller network means it can offer advertising as a revenue stream in a way Walmart can’t compete with.

reply
nikkev
45 minutes ago
[-]
Their business models are increasingly converging with both generative revenue through seller fees, subscriptions, and advertising. Amazon is ahead in most of these areas and also has the higher margin revenue from AWS. Amazon also has a large base of prime subscribers they can sell incremental services to.
reply
Reason077
28 minutes ago
[-]
> ”it doesn't explain why Amazon would have a 2x market cap over Walmart when they both roughly make the same revenue.”

Why does Tesla have 15x the market cap of BYD, despite BYD selling more cars, having more revenue, and much faster revenue growth?

reply
taeric
18 minutes ago
[-]
Comparing to Walmart, though, I would expect higher growth. Would you not?
reply
NoMoreNicksLeft
21 minutes ago
[-]
>You have to believe that Amazon is poised for much higher growth than they are to justify their current stock price.

How many decades now have we lived in a world where the demand for investment far outstrips sane investment opportunities? In such a world, do stock prices have to be justified as you insinuate? And what happens when the prices are far higher than can be justified? I ask not rhetorically, but rather whether I should be hoarding shotgun shells and canned goods and hiding in the basement.

reply
mullingitover
35 minutes ago
[-]
Walmart doesn’t have a cloud computing side business that’s wildly profitable.
reply
evanjacobs
53 minutes ago
[-]
> There is little market share left for them to win

Despite controlling about 40% of US online retail, Amazon only has about an 8% share of total US retail. There’s still plenty of room to grow here.

https://www.emarketer.com/content/amazon-will-surpass-40-of-...

reply
NoMoreNicksLeft
10 minutes ago
[-]
I'm down to about one Walmart trip per year. It may have been as many as 3 years since I've been inside Target. Kmart is a dusty memory. On my last Walmart trip, it is a shabby caricature of what I remember from the early 2000s (maybe even on up into 2011 or 2012. I can't be sure, but I believe aisles have been made wider so they could fit fewer shelves and keep those looking fuller. What fills them is the cheapest looking junk I have ever seen, and I had no favorable opinion of Walmart's goods to start with. Truly much of it looks like the sort of trinkety crap you would have found at flea markets and gas stations years ago. Target was (3 years ago) still worse, I think they do most of their ordering off of Temu.

If there is something I might prefer to not wait on Amazon for, I will not find it at Walmart even if I remember Walmart once carrying that product. This is without fail. Each new (rare) trip to Walmart reinforces the lesson.

I have never been fond of Walmart's grocery department. I suspect (long ago) that they were able to sell produce 1 cent cheaper than anyone else by buying the least-wanted, unsold inventory from agricultural distributors, and the quality always reflected that theory. I could buy strawberries from Walmart, buy them again from the local grocery chain 10 minutes later, put them in the fridge simultaneously. And the Walmart-bought produce was slimy the next day, the grocery store produce not (unless I stacked the Walmart clamshell on the grocery store one... cross-contamination).

Worse still, they have reduced their personnel to skeleton crews, all shifts. The stores tend to look like they were looted after hurricanes. I do not know how anyone shops at Walmart, and it scares me that if my circumstances were less agreeable I might be forced to shop there too. Walmart might aim for stealing marketshare from Dollar General as a growth strategy, the overlap must be nearly absolute.

reply
coredog64
58 minutes ago
[-]
> Despite being so massive, their retail operation makes almost no money

You misunderstand the point of retail. It's now a marketplace where they use their name recognition and (alleged) consumer friendliness to collect fees from sellers. It costs to list, it costs to do FBA, and it costs to run ads so that your products appear in search results. Amazon ads is incredibly profitable.

That's also why Prime has such a grab bag of benefits. By keeping Prime membership sticky, the overall value of that marketplace supports the fees charged to sellers.

reply
taeric
1 hour ago
[-]
I am not so sure this is an accurate analysis? Notably, a major thing that kept it so that retail made no money, was the massive expense of expanding the retail operations. That is, expanding retail footprint is a massive cost. And you have to expand if you want to reach more customers.

This is different from AWS where your reach is essentially "all of the internet" for anything that you launch. But this really just meant that reinvesting the revenue from AWS was harder for them to do, compared to revenue from retail. As a result, they didn't. Not nearly as aggressively.

reply
zeroonetwothree
1 hour ago
[-]
Their profit margin on retail is similar to other discount retailers like Walmart. Retail just doesn’t have huge margins.
reply
criddell
23 minutes ago
[-]
> There is little market share left for them to win, the best they can do to grow is shave expenses.

I think Amazon netted something like $70 billion last year. What's the problem with them just staying the course and earning tens of billions of dollars in profit year-after-year-after-year?

reply
saulpw
12 minutes ago
[-]
Number must go up. It's a problem with capitalism in general.
reply
mfrye0
28 minutes ago
[-]
Relevant data point on AWS - GCP is giving out a ton of cloud credits to startups. On average $100k in comparison to $10k-20k from AWS.

Before Claude Code, a full cloud migration could easily be a couple months. We migrated our whole stack to GCP in about a week. It's trivial to switch clouds now with K8 stack and Claude Code.

reply
novia
1 hour ago
[-]
they could improve their product search page so it's actually useful
reply
wodenokoto
1 hour ago
[-]
They say one of the reasons supermarkets move isles layout is so people don’t learn to navigate the store and they put milk in the back to make sure people have to walk the isles.

The purpose is to get shoppers to look at more stuff and impulse buy.

I honestly believe search is bad for the same reason.

reply
wlesieutre
1 hour ago
[-]
It's useful for making sellers pay for promoted product positions
reply
kypro
1 hour ago
[-]
Depends how you define their "core business" I suppose.

You're right, but their retail business does support the bulk of their ad business which is extremely profitable. Arguably it might actually make sense for them to run their retail business as a loss leader to support their high-margin ad business.

reply
monero-xmr
1 hour ago
[-]
They could just increase prices. They deliver fast (often same day) and always accept my returns. Add 5% to prices, pure margin.
reply
philip1209
1 hour ago
[-]
Warren Buffet retired. This is Berkshire Hathaway.
reply
c22
18 minutes ago
[-]
He's in the office every day. I bet they at least ran this by him.
reply
stackghost
55 minutes ago
[-]
My understanding is that Warren gave up his seat as CEO but is still the chairman, and is still at least peripherally involved in investment decisions at Berkshire
reply
s-kymon
30 minutes ago
[-]
Also these are year end portfolio changes, so could very well be Warren.
reply
giancarlostoro
1 hour ago
[-]
Next time Amazon goes low I'm sure he'll buy it all back at a discount. With all his wealth he can get away with slow patient investing with swathes of cash.
reply
malfist
1 hour ago
[-]
Amazon just shed $450 billion in value. It's low right now.
reply
giancarlostoro
59 minutes ago
[-]
Not sure if they can all of a sudden buy it right now, at some point that starts looking like market manipulation. Wait a few years or months, see a ton of companies tank, buy at a discount. We've seen them do this several times.
reply
baggachipz
20 minutes ago
[-]
Another Prime membership fee increase, incoming!
reply
Insanity
1 hour ago
[-]
Amazon is pretty volatile stock at the moment, as are most companies that chase the AI bandwagon. I don’t think Amazon is doomed but the companies chasing AI are in for a rough time.

Plus continuing waves of layoffs will lead to more frequent and longer AWS outages, and lower quality of retail products will hurt that side of Amazon.

reply
divbzero
1 hour ago
[-]
Adding the obligatory disclaimer: Berkshire Hathaway selling $1.7B of Amazon stock is likely a decision by Ted Weschler or Todd Combs, still notable but not necessarily Warren Buffett himself.
reply
harmmonica
1 hour ago
[-]
It's right in the post, but just to save folks a click it's a 77% drawdown in the position so it's a substantial move. I see they also trimmed Apple, but, for comparison's sake, looks like that was only a decrease of 4.3% of the position.
reply
sleepyguy
13 minutes ago
[-]
I’ve heard that Amazon’s capital expenditures have exceeded its annual cash flow, leading it to borrow and cut jobs to fund AI investments. Unlike Microsoft and Google, which appear able to fund capex internally, Amazon seems to be in a costly growth race with deeper-pocketed competitors. My view, this could mean continued heavy borrowing and limited to no profitability in the near term.
reply
bau5
24 minutes ago
[-]
One positive out of this is that it could bring MacKenzie Scott's net worth down a bit (she still holds significant Amazon stock), leading to her spending less on harmful donations...
reply
rvz
1 hour ago
[-]
Berkshire, Not Buffet.

Also, why would anyone want to work at Amazon at this point?

One of the worst companies to join with the worst margins out of the big tech companies.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46809296

reply
wifipunk
36 minutes ago
[-]
Desperation and relatively high compensation.

Every friend I've ever had work for them was burnt out but stayed because they were too burnt out to look for a new job

reply
SilverElfin
1 hour ago
[-]
After Amazon has been a great friend to the Trump administration, by partnering with Flock, by funding the Melania documentary to basically bribe Trump, etc - why should Americans or others trust them or give them business? Amazon isn’t that interesting anymore. You can buy most things directly from a trusted manufacturer or other websites. I don’t see them doing anything innovative at all. What’s the last useful thing they did - AWS? And that stopped being novel more than 10 years ago.

The problem is, megacorp with infinite capital get to make these massive mistakes and stumble through failure after failure, when everyday entrepreneurs get crushed for the tiniest problem.

reply
PaulDavisThe1st
1 hour ago
[-]
> You can buy most things directly from a trusted manufacturer or other websites.

My experience over the last year has been the opposite. More and more of the specialized bits and pieces I need or want are only sold online via Amazon.

Extremely depressing.

reply
phil21
1 hour ago
[-]
I don't share the Amazon hate everyone has, I've had very good experiences with Amazon retail. But I do sometimes try to spread out my purchases to other vendors due to monopoly concerns.

It's amazing how many times you buy direct from a vendor and then it comes via Fulfilled by Amazon.

The other issue is when anything goes wrong I've had a hell of a time with some vendors. It's a crapshoot - some vendors ship quickly and competently, and handle customer service like returns quite well. Others you might end up with your product not even shipping for a week much less arriving, even though the store says "in stock ships tomorrow". Due to this, when I really must have something on time or if it's a risky purchase I have a good chance of needing to return I tend towards just getting it with Amazon.

A lot of smaller shops simply don't want to deal with logistics and customer service - it's hard to compete on Amazon for shipping costs. And warehouse/returns/etc. is just a nightmare for a small shop. I absolutely understand why a small speciality manufacturer with a few dozen low volume SKUs would prefer to just use FBA and be done with it.

reply
PaulDavisThe1st
56 minutes ago
[-]
> it's hard to compete on Amazon for shipping costs.

Not so much that it is hard, as that Amazon more or less forces vendors on its platforms to eat shipping costs.

reply
malfist
1 hour ago
[-]
You can count the number of times Jassy has lead amazon to an innovative new product during his tenure as CEO on zero hands.
reply
PaulDavisThe1st
53 minutes ago
[-]
If you consider Amazon to be a retail company, then the comparison is with other retailers. When was the last time a retailer introduced an innovative new product? That's not what retailers do - they figure out where and how to sell <stuff>, other people make the <stuff> and it gets sold. The innovation happens to the <stuff>, not the retail.

Obviously, there are long term trends like the acceptance of credit cards that took place between the late 1970s and late 1980s in the US. But retail isn't exactly known for being a hotbed of innovation.

If you are thinking about other aspects of Amazon (obviously, AWS), then ... I can't comment on that.

reply
Insanity
1 hour ago
[-]
“Why should Americans trust them”, I’d go further and say you shouldn’t trust any company.
reply
renewiltord
1 hour ago
[-]
Personally, I just buy stuff from a store and return it if I don’t like it. I don’t need to trust the store because the US has good enough consumer laws. It’s a store not my wife. I don’t need to have these ethical dilemmas over getting Coke Zero delivered.
reply
mamma_mia
1 hour ago
[-]
mamma mia! didn't he step down? very cool that he's back in the game
reply
Supermancho
1 hour ago
[-]
Warren Buffet stepped down as CEO from Berkshire Hathaway. He's still involved as Chairman with under 50% stake, afaik.

This was Berkshire Hathaway, not Warren Buffet, despite the misleading title.

reply