Amazon includes AWS. They’re not “separate companies.”
They should be completely separate. If they were two independent companies, a low margin distribution and logistics company on one side and a high margin software services company on the other then nobody would suggest merging the two together.
That’s right. The trillion dollar low margin dinosaur pays cash by writing close to zero profit in the books, and signs the bonds.
AWS is the cash cow. It owns between a third and half of the world's cloud computing market. Do you think it's hard for AWS to get financing?
Which cloud company can casually find 100B cash in a year?
AWS. Because AWS reports close to $11B/quarter, which is over half Amazon's entire revenue, and AWS owns the cloud computing market, on which the whole world runs.
Probably you mean operating income.
The key number for operating a company is the free cash flow.
AWS does not have the cash flow to maintain its CAPEX. It currently uses part of Retail FCF and additional debt that the entire AMZN company takes.
NVIDIA does not offer you 10 year payment plan (like depreciation schedules assume). They ask for their cash upfront.
If it was that easy to find cash OpenAI would not have given up so much equity to dinosaurs with strong balance sheet.
Actually, they are. Perhaps what is causing your confusion is that other parts of Amazon, such as Ring or Rivian, are also separate companies, whereas parts such as Alexa and Amazon Music aren't.
No. My definition is Amazon's actual organization chart as a holding. AWS is an independent first-level branch of direct reports of Andy Jassy, who was AWS's CEO before replacing Bezos. A similar branch is Worldwide Consumer, which groups what you think Amazon actually is, which means the online store, prime, books, devices, etc.