Amazon market cap went up 3.5% as of the current tick, roughly $15.5B. The market effectively rewarded AMZN for the transaction far beyond the actual $13.7B tender offer!
This of course pales in comparison to the 478 million outstanding shares, so, you are correct: their shares don't appreciate nearly enough from the $15 billion surge in market cap to pay for the $13.7 billion purchase. However, to say "whatever the stock does has no impact on the company" is also inaccurate.
They do not, either in theory or in practice, own the assets of the corporation while it exists.
"effectively free" is a strange label to give this.
It means there's an opportunity cost: all other things being equal, it would cost Amazon two billion dollars in market capitalization to NOT do whatever the hell Wall Street THINKS they're going to do with Whole Foods.
Maybe the market thinks they're going to use them as bases for grocery distribution: reward, the cost of acquisition plus a bonus two billion. Maybe the market thinks they're going to gut the company, fire everybody, and then there's one less competitor for what Amazon means to do with groceries! Maybe the market thinks they'll take the existing Amazon grocery stuff and rebrand it Whole Foods and the rabble will buy into that for a time.
The point is that this money really isn't free: it's conditional on whether Amazon does what the investors think they're gonna do, with the acquisition. If Amazon fails to do that, the market capitalization can evaporate.
My own hunch is that the market thinks Amazon is super efficient and acquisitive, and that Whole Foods is weak and inefficient and misguided. As such, the expectation of greedy and amoral investors is that Amazon will take over and whip Whole Foods into shape, maybe even fire everybody and replace 'em with Amazonians, and that will make Whole Foods 'better' and justify the exercise. They certainly aren't buying into Whole Foods' 'enlightened' memes: that has no place on Wall Street.
So I'm guessing it's BECAUSE Whole Foods has been 'enlightened' that the prospect of wrecking that so motivates investors. They figure that the Amazon way is clearly the winning way, and they figure there will be a BIG difference in how things are done, and it's a difference they characterize as 'good for capital', so there's a synergistic effect that makes it 'free' for Amazon plus a bonus. And then Amazon is obligated to do what's expected of them, which I think is probably kinda predictable.
with regards to the purchase I can imagine cobranding or in store only advertising. perhaps they can use it let people pick up orders themselves? Online grocery ordering but only where a Whole Foods store is available.
The only reason I know about Aldi is that I spent a couple of years working in Chicago (and living further out), and even there I had to drive a long ways out of my way to find an Aldi. I think I went once in the 2 years I was there.
Whole Foods is everywhere.
EDIT: apparently I was effectively wrong, different Aldis:
> What if this is about taking the Whole Foods concept online in a big way ... make it dramatically more efficient, aggressively lower prices, and deliver all this goodness to a far larger percentage of the population?
Efficiency and cheapness would go against the Whole Foods brand.
For their existing customers, yes, but WF has become an aspirational brand.
What if the play is to gain a large number of less affluent customers by WF-labeling lots of inexpensive things?
Search Amazon for some commodity like corn meal, or rolled oats. There's a huge price difference between Quaker brand and Bob's Red Mill. Amazon could insert Whole Foods brand right in the middle and skim customers from both ends while maintaining handsome margins.
I don't know what this means. The WF experience has nothing to do with these things. The price (cheap or less-than-expensive) and efficiency (I think you mean availability?) aren't really important, other than they are successful in the same way Trader Joes is successful, in fewer locations.
Sure they say that now...
What is the strategic logic behind this move?
NYT, WaPo, WSJ, Bloomberg all take the same line: this is about Amazon's expansion into brick-and-mortar retail. They need a physical footprint, knock out Instacart for delivery, accelerate Amazon Go, and so on.
But is this really Amazon's play here? Seems to me this is just the superficial and obvious rationale, and these analysts completely missed the bigger implications.
Since Amazon said they're not renaming the stores, how can this be about Amazon's brick-and-mortar expansion?
Seems more likely that Amazon's strategy is actually the opposite of this.
Instead, maybe the bigger opportunity is to "Amazonify" a good brand, good people, good merchandising and thousands of relationships with good suppliers.
Customers already trust Whole Foods and they like the assortment, but (1) only a small percentage of the population has access to a store, and (2) an even smaller percentage of the population can afford it.
What if this is about taking the Whole Foods concept online in a big way ... make it dramatically more efficient, aggressively lower prices, and deliver all this goodness to a far larger percentage of the population?
Whole Foods market share is less than 2%. Amazon could turn this $13 billion business into a $130 billion business by plugging WF into Amazon's existing apparatus for merchandising, pricing, inventory control, online sales, logistics, and direct-to-consumer delivery.
Taking WF market share up from 2% to 20% is a much bigger opportunity than going the other direction, and just using WF stores to sell Amazon's grocery assortment.