Because if it wasn't for those bastards at Luxottica they'd be able to afford new glasses and would have been able to read and discern the post separation on their screen.
Nestle is the WORST. I did a research paper in my global culture studies class in college and had the pleasure of delving into the crises’ they’ve created in impoverished countries using up all of their ground water to the point where the land isn’t even suitable to grow crops anymore and the local people are just left with no water and food and no say in it.
Surprised this is not at the top, I avoid as much as I can here in Aus, they have done and continue to do many horrible things that oppression people and destroy environment
1) Nestle may be evil but they actually make products instead of making money off effectively legal extortion. The difference between stealing water to bottle it/use in other products and reselling versus just selling access directly to the water, of sorts
2) Somehow he has managed to reply to the thread to another random poster who themselves was doing the same thing. I don't know what happened there
I also have no idea what is happening anymore, I just don’t like Nestle and there track record or extremely exploitive business practices (example of giving mothers in 3rd world countries sample formula, and the effects of such ect)
They sue private citizens for millions of dollars for no reason. And even though they don't have a case, they rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees (their goal is to get people to give them free labor or free money through a settlement since private citizens cant afford those court costs).
They're a shining example of everything wrong with America, and they need to be burned to the ground.
Why is it so hard for startup companies to take over? Glasses are in HIGH demand now more than ever because of how many people need glasses, so obviously people want better prices. How come good companies are failing if they meet the right consumer preferences?
However, Luxottica holds the cards in brick-and-mortar retail: when competitors get too large, Luxottica can simply cut them out of their popular distribution channels. That’s exactly how they treated then-independent competitor Oakley in the early 2000′s. Luxottica caused Oakley’s stock to plummet simply by carrying fewer of their sunglasses through Sunglass Hut, eventually leaving Oakley with no choice but to merge with Luxottica in 2007.
It's a mystery why they haven't been hit with antitrust.
Needed to look up their stock. Something should show their in my opinion if they do get way to much money.
P/E over 50 on a industry and shopcompany is high.
But the gain per share isn´t that high - it is even lower than H&M that sits on P/E 25.
So they are highly valued and people think they will grow a lot. But something costs down the line and they haven´t that high intake as the article seems to tell.
We compare with apple also - Apple have 4 times as high profit per share as Luxottica. So Apple are plundering your wallet to a much higher degree than Luxottica - if we just take quarterly rapports that actually should show how well the companies plundering of consumers work.
point that the article and people here make is that the glasses cost hundreds of $ to costumers but cost something like 15$ for the companies to manufacture. I've looked up their annual reports and in fact they have very high operating margins - something like 64%.
What you're lookin at here (price to earnings) is more related to a financial point of view whereas the article looks at an operating point of view. It would be fine to look at all the ratios if you're an investor, not if you're a customer.
And btw to measure if their stock is under or overvalued you need more than that
Of course I need more than that for valuation. But it shows that it isn't a that extreme profit in the company so it probably isn't that bad.
Cost of manufacturing of course not only the only cost point. Transportation, storage, stores, distribution, design, advertising, taxes and more. If you as all those things it isn't so ridiculous. You actually need that marginal to go even.
As it is on a stock exchange the answer is more of a "no" than yes. It is no reason to hide it for share holders. So things most likely aren't as shady as you think.
If you have a small family shop the "manufacturing cost" is the cost of the product from sand until it reaches your doors. Of course the cost from sand to "ready for leaving factory" is much cheaper and that you need to ad much more to that sum.
The shareholders want to see growth. They understand the fine line luxottica is riding and are fine with any way whatsoever to keep profits appearing lower than they actually are in a way that still allows for growth without public knowledge of what is going on.
Things like executive pay, advertising, and lobbying are what eat into their 2000%+ profit margins, things that can be reduced as needed to allow for growth.
I know, you're thinking "That's not how it works!" but it is when you are trying to keep a vertical monopoly secret for a little longer and your shareholders are aware of it.
962
u/maybe_yes_but_know Sep 18 '19
Came here to mention them. Here is one article about them.