Amazon reports quarterly loss, so of course share price is up

Welcome to the wacky world of Amazon.

Amazon, the company which loves to make no profit, has made no profit. In its quarterly results, released today, the company has revealed it lost $7m for the months of April to June, down from a profit of $7m for the same three months in 2012. That's compared to total revenue of $15.7bn for the quarter, up by 22 per cent year on year.

Of course, this being Amazon, the company's stock is actually 1.3 per cent higher than it was at the close of trading yesterday. Immediately after the news was released, it fell to a low of 299, having closed at 303.4 the day before; but since then it's risen inexorably, and it's now at 307.8. That's because, to quote Matt Yglesias, the Slate blogger who was cited by Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos in a letter to shareholders, "Amazon, as far as I can tell, is a charitable organization being run by elements of the investment community for the benefit of consumers". The company's owners seem a unique group of people on Wall Street: those who don't actually want to make any money.

Of course, that's not actually particularly likely. Instead, the operating loss probably explains the moves we've seen in the last month or so to tighten up margins at the company. First prices started to rise on small-press books, then the company re-instated delivery charges; it now looks like that was less a desire to start earning profit, and more a realisation that margins had dropped too low for even a company like Amazon.

But while margins are low, revenues are up, up, up. Which means the company's primary goal – of becoming the biggest in the world, profit be damned – is ticking along nicely. As for what happens when they do, well, do we really care? We've all got such cheap hardbacks and CDs, it's almost not worth it.

A man walks through an Amazon warehouse. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.