News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Amazon Web Services revenue rises 81% year over year by Aqueous on Friday July 24, 2015 @09:43AM (#9941916)
Issuing stock is not the principle way they maintain positive cash flow. The float between the time their customers pay them and the time they have promised to pay their vendors creates enormous, ever-increasing operating cash flow:

https://hbr.org/2014/10/at-amazon-its-all-about-cash-flow/

They are essentially borrowing from their own customers (or maybe more accurately, vendors), at zero interest, to continually build the business.

Re:Amazon Web Services revenue rises 81% year over year by ethbro on Friday July 24, 2015 @10:01AM (#9942008)
Incidentally, this is pretty much how Warren Buffett made his first billions with Berkshire to the best of my understanding.

He realized that insurance generated enormous carry, and if you were able to better utilize that (say, by buying other companies and improving them) then you had a pretty winning strategy.

Re:Amazon Web Services revenue rises 81% year over year by ISL on Friday July 24, 2015 @10:35AM (#9942250)
Most insurance companies operate this way, which long predates Buffett. In fact, it's possible for premiums to sum to less than the costs of insuring precisely because of the float.

Buffett has done well by choosing companies and people that are good at avoiding losing money.

If Amazon had a viable competitor, the profits of float investments would be the ammunition in the resulting price war. Amazon's margin is someone's opportunity.

Re:Amazon Web Services revenue rises 81% year over year by yokohama11 on Friday July 24, 2015 @12:27PM (#9943107)
Not even just possible, but the default of operation in the industry. Most don't turn an underwriting profit with any consistency and make all their money on their investments from that float.
Re:Amazon Web Services revenue rises 81% year over year by ethbro on Friday July 24, 2015 @01:06PM (#9943457)
I was under the impression that most insurance companies aren't part of a larger business entity that directly invests their float in other companies.

I'd assume there would be advantages on that closer relationship vs a stand-alone insurance company simply investing in a publicly traded offering.