This post is indirectly about Amazon’s retailing business, although it has much wider implications.
My answer: not necessarily. It depends on what kind of company we’re talking about. Note, also, that this is a topic that’s badly misunderstood, particularly in the financial press, which clings to the simple assumption that high margins, of themselves, are better than low ones.
The apparent virtue of having high margins is clear. Companies that have, for instance, essential intellectual property protected by high patent/copyright/manufacturing-knowhow walls, can achieve selling prices that are much greater function of the usefulness of their products/services to customers than of their production costs (this latter is the functional definition of a commodity company). Software firms can easily achieve 50%–or maybe 80% or 90%–operating margins for their wares.
Most distribution companies–both wholesale and retail–don’t work this way, however. They thrive through low margins, high inventory turnover and careful working capital management to achieve superior financial results. In fact, for these companies high margins are a threat, not a boon. Why? …because high margins attract competition.
the low-margin model
Here’s a (highly simplified) account of how the low-margin model works:
the simplest case
A warehouse holds inventory of $1 million. It constantly replenishes its stocks, and pays cash immediately for new supplies, so that it always has $1 million invested. It marks items up by 5% over its costs.
Let’s say the company generates an average of $525,000 in sales per month. That means it turns over about half its inventory (a turnover ratio of 6x/year) each month, earning operating income of $25,000. $25,000 x 12 = $300,000 in operating profit per year. Applying a 1/3 income tax rate, it produces $200,000 in net income. That’s a 20% return on invested capital. Not bad.
a more favorable one
Let’s now imagine that the company can turn its inventory once a month (turnover ratio = 12). This means it earns operating income of $50,000/month, or $600,000 per year. This translates into $400,000 in net income. That’s a 40% return on capital.
Let’s say the company turns inventory once a month but is large enough or important enough to suppliers that they no longer ask for payment on delivery. Instead, they are willing to wait for 30-45 days.
Now the company has zero/negative working capital, i.e., no capital invested in inventory. It’s return on investment is now infinite.
Yes, this third case is probably too good to be true. But it illustrates the enormous, badly-understood, power of high inventory-turnover companies.
A post on potential troubles in paradise on Tuesday.
Interestingly, as a company moves toward your description of Nirvana, its barriers tend to increase. Costo is an example of a business that is positioned toward the Nirvana scenario.