In other words, you can say that any given vertical worth $Xbn of their revenue was their profit, if you are convinced that Costco actually models their pricing around that vertical section of their revenue. But in reality, everyone knows that the section they model around is membership fees - everything else is break even and the fees are profit.
Are you saying that the way they account for memberships doesn't make much accounting sense?
(they break it out, page 37 http://investor.costco.com/static-files/05c62fe6-6c09-4e16-8... )
No, they are selling to you for $1000 something that they bought for $900. But they still have to pay all their operating costs.
Their revenue in FY 2019 was $149.4bn (+ $3.4bn in membership fees) and the cost of merchandise was $132.bn. Their gross margin is 11% but then you have $15bn in "Selling, General and Administrative" expenses.
I've heard that before, but I can't see how it could be. My back-of-an-envelope calculation: Let's say I spend $1000 per year (I'm estimating low). According to the article, Costco's average markup is 11%. So they make $99.10 profit on my $1000 of spending. Let's assume that the $60 membership is 100% profit. The total profit from me is $159.10. My membership fees would be only 37% profit (60/159.10 = .37). Do vast numbers of people pay for $60 or $120 memberships and spend much less than $1000?