Don't they deliberately show losses to avoid taxes?
Stupidity at its best. Don't listen to people who say this.
When you "show loss" you also need to fund it. The "loss" is an exponentially higher number than the tax to be paid.
No one in their right mind would say, "Oh let me lose $1bn so I don't have to pay $250mn in taxes" UNLESS they have black income.
That's the difference right? - I said "Showing losses" and not actual loss. They have multiple different revenue stream especially from cloud business that can fund these losses.
Yea 0.9b is chump change to Amazon. The opportunity to capture a big chunk of Indian e-commerce is huge. They can outlast the competition for years to come and then start making the profits
The competition is Walmart
You’d be surprised with America’s debt. For rich or such big businesses, debt is an instrument afaik
Exactly
Flipkart is bigger than Flipkart around 30B$ should be it for fk.
Second that. While FK AOV is low it's quite ahead in terms of orders and hence GMV of FK definitely to be higher than that of AMAZON. I was estimating it to be close to 35 Bn$. And another way arrive at this number is through their recent funding by Google at 33Bn$ valuation. Typically for valuations at such level are 1 times GMV.
Would love to know more about the market here specifically B2B retail media ads, think Amazon ads etc......if anyone here is working on that I have one very specific question.
What's the percentage of GMV that you folks have been able t...
After 16 years of existence should we still call Flipkart a startup?
This is somewhat misleading. Walmart isn’t looking for a profit, but to maintain the foothold in Indian market....
Even Amazon India isn't profitable on India operations even after 10 years of its launch - it's infact massively loss...
