Print Сite this

Amazon, Microsoft and Google Firms’ Financial Analysis

Introduction

In current economic conditions, the issues of accounting and economic analysis of the financial results of the organization’s activities are of great importance. The main advantage of accounting can and should be considered that only thanks to its data is it possible to determine the indicators of profitability and profitability of the enterprise and thereby assess the effectiveness of decisions made by its management. It is important to analyze not only the dynamics, structure, factors, and reserves of profit growth but also the ratio of the effect of profit with the available or used resources, as well as with the income of the enterprise from its ordinary and other economic activities, studying the final financial results of the enterprise. The need for this comparison can also be explained by the fact that many enterprises that have received the same amount of profit have different volumes of turnover, different costs, and resources. In general, the economic and financial analysis of the results of the economic activity of the organization allows developing a specific strategy and tactics for its development, the identification and assessment of reserves for the growth of profits and profitability, and ways to mobilize them.

Our experts can deliver a Amazon, Microsoft and Google Firms’ Financial Analysis essay
tailored to your instructions
for only $13.00 $11.05/page
308 qualified specialists online
Learn more

Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are the most prominent players in their marketplace, spanning multiple industries. Over the years, Amazon has shown successful growth in its gross income, net and operating income, and total equity (Wells, Danskin & Ellsworth, 2018). Amazon is also famous for its recommendation systems and personalization, becoming research by scientists (Smith & Linden, 2017). However, Amazon’s reputation, despite its success, has not always been clean. First, there is the potential for the Matthew effect and the Ratchet effect, which in this context implies support for successful stores and a lack of support for small ones (Chua & Banerjee, 2017). Second, Amazon’s exit prevents affected third-party sellers from continuing to grow on the platform, increasing product demand and lowering shipping costs for consumers (Zhu & Liu, 2018). However, this did not stop Amazon from maintaining a steady growth in financial performance. This paper compares these indicators with those from Google and Microsoft to determine which company and why growth was more stable, more noticeable, or vice versa.

Microsoft is only partly a competitor to Amazon. This company has almost the same market capitalization with a lower annual turnover (Hazlett, 2020). The company is engaged in online sales, creates equipment but does not provide its streaming video and audio services and third-party marketplace (Wegman et al., 2018). Google, in turn, has all of these industries: streaming services, and the ability to place on the marketplace, and online sales, and even its own payment system (Kim & Choi, 2019). As of 2018, Google had a lower turnover than Amazon, with almost the same market capitalization (Sadq, Sabir & Saeed, 2018). Amazon also has amazon music, prime, marketplace, and payments; it creates its technique based on online sales.

Financial Analysis

For financial analysis, five different financial indicators were selected, which generally show the efficiency and profitability of the company. Among them is the current liquidity ratio, which shows its ability to pay off its short-term liabilities without attracting additional income (Bogdan, Bareša & Ivanović, 2012). This indicator was chosen since Amazon is relatively low compared to Google or Microsoft, demonstrated in tables 1, 6, and 11. However, with constantly growing profits, as shown from table 2, Amazon can slow down investments if necessary, save a certain amount of money from increasing this indicator.

The net profit margin was chosen as an indicator of profitability for a reason. Firstly, this indicator is the main one when evaluating a company, and best reflects its profitability (Nariswari & Nugraha, 2020). Secondly, for ten years at Amazon, it even went into the negative, an incredible difference compared to Microsoft and Google. However, upon deep examination of the company, this only indicates that Amazon has been pursuing a course of continuous development, having incurred many expenses over the past decade, investing almost all of its profits back into the company (Hahn, Kim & Youn, 2018). This approach promises significant profits over the long term.

Amazon has the best asset turnover ratio over its other two competitors due to its large profit injection. However, Amazon’s inventory turnover is relatively low due to a large number of various goods with different restock periods. Finally, Amazon’s high receivable turnover ratio, the latter, suggests that the company operates on a cash basis and has a conservative view of lending to its suppliers or customers (Al-Marzooqi & Nobanee, 2020). Microsoft and Google are likely to have more recent approaches in this regard, as shown by the lower scores in Tables 8 and 13 compared to Table 3.

ROE, ROA, and ROI indicators show the company’s attractiveness for investment. Amazon has seen leaps and bounds over the past decade, but the steady, high growth creates the edge over Microsoft and Google. The latter two companies perform well in general but lack stability, which is essential in this regard. In addition, Amazon’s sharp jump in ROE is partly due to rising debt, which means that investors should focus more on other profit margins. Reflection and comparison can be seen in tables 4, 9, and 14 below. Tables 5, 10, and 15 show leverage ratios that are low enough for all three companies. It means they are not pursuing aggressive debt financing strategies, as evidenced by their debt obligations.

On-Time Delivery! Get your 100% customized paper
done in
as little as 3 hours
Let`s start

Table 1. Amazon Liquidity Ratio

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Current Assets 11.29B 12.10B 16.29B 19.44B 25.92B 30.48B 39.45B 50.84B 69.43B 85.99B
Current Liabilities 7.73B 10.45B 14.35B 18.39B 23.18B 28.22B 37.41B 48.03B 63.70B 79.71B
Current Liquidity Ratio 1.46 1.16 1.14 1.05 1.12 1.08 1.06 1.06 1.09 1.05

Table 2. Amazon Profitability Net Margin Ratio

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
TTM Revenue 36.93B 51.41B 63.98B 78.12B 91.96B 113.42B 142.57B 193.19B 241.55B 296B
TTM Net Income 1.05B 0.56B -0.09B 0.30B -0.41B 1.17B 2.58B 3.94B 12.01B 10.56B
Net Margin 2.85% 1.09% -0.14% 0.38% -0.44% 1.03% 1.81% 2.04% 4.97% 3.56%

Table 3. Amazon Efficiency Ratios

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Asset Turnover 1.90 1.87 1.85 1.63 1.65 1.63 1.35 1.4 1.24 1.20
Inventory Turnover 7.52 7.62 7.31 7.56 6.99 7.7 6.97 8.1 8.07 9.84
Receivable Turnover 18.6 16.0 15.6 15.8 18.9 16.3 13.5 13.9 13.47 15.7

Table 4. Amazon Investment Ratios

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
ROE (Return on Equity) 8.11 -0.47 2.81 -2.24 4.45 12.29 10.94 23.13 18.67 22.83
ROA (Return of Assets) 2.50 -0.11 0.68 -3.24 0.92 2.84 2.30 6.19 5.14 6.64
ROI (Return on Investment) 7.90 -0.35 2.11 -1.26 2.75 8.78 5.78 15.02 13.55 17.03

Table 5. Amazon Gearing Ratios

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Debt Capital 0.03 0.27 0.24 0.43 0.38 0.28 0.47 0.35 0.27 0.25
Debt Equity 0.03 0.37 0.32 0.77 0.61 0.39 0.90 0.54 0.37 0.34

Table 6. Microsoft Liquidity Ratio

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Current Assets 66.26B 76.86B 93.52B 109.01B 118.40B 128.42B 146.31B 156.66B 159.89B 170.51B
Current Liabilities 24.04B 26.17B 31.93B 33.90B 40.75B 44.35B 52.01B 46.13B 53.86B 58.71B
Current Liquidity Ratio 2.76 2.94 2.93 3.22 2.91 2.90 2.81 3.40 2.97 2.90

Table 7. Microsoft Profitability Net Margin Ratio

We’ll deliver a custom paper tailored to your requirements.
Cut 15% off your first order
Use discount
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
TTM Revenue 68.62B 73.03B 73.72B 76.01B 83.35B 94.78B 86.89B 97.41B 110.36B 122.21B
TTM Net Income 21.79B 23.34B 16.98B 16.41B 22.43B 20.00B 10.48B 24.28B 16.57B 34.93B
Net Margin 31.76% 31.96% 23.03% 21.58% 26.91% 21.10% 12.06% 24.93% 15.02% 28.58%

Table 8. Microsoft Efficiency Ratios

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Asset Turnover 0.64 0.60 0.54 0.50 0.53 0.47 0.38 0.42 0.43 0.47
Inventory Turnover 11.35 15.41 10.51 10.17 11.38 14.56 15.70 14.40 20.79 24.31
Receivable Turnover 4.66 4.67 4.45 4.44 5.22 4.98 4.30 4.16 4.26 4.46

Table 9. Microsoft Investment Ratios

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
ROE (Return on Equity) 40.55 25.58 27.69 24.58 15.22 28.52 29.6 20.03 38.34 37.42
ROA (Return of Assets) 21.29 14.00 15.34 12.80 6.98 10.64 10.18 6.40 13.69 14.69
ROI (Return on Investment) 33.54 22.02 23.88 19.98 11.30 18.24 15.56 10.69 23.22 24.89

Table 10. Microsoft Gearing Ratios

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Debt Capital 0.17 0.13 0.13 0.18 0.25 0.36 0.46 0.46 0.39 0.33
Debt Equity 0.20 0.18 0.19 0.25 0.44 0.74 0.98 0.92 0.7 0.53

Table 11. Google Liquidity Ratio

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Current Assets 43.31B 56.86B 62.81B 75.31B 80.31B 90.96B 108.79B 123.76B 138.21B 147.02B
Current Liabilities 9.33B 9.74B 13.25B 16.27B 14.34B 17.68B 15.26B 25.39B 34.91B 40.19B
Current Liquidity Ratio 4.64 5.84 4.74 4.63 5.60 5.14 7.13 4.87 3.96 3.66

Table 12. Google Profitability Net Margin Ratio

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
TTM Revenue 31.12B 39.98B 48.35B 57.99B 67.84B 77.94B 94.77B 117.25B 142.01B 166.68B
TTM Net Income 8.35B 10.82B 11.19B 12.84B 14.20B 16.53B 20.70B 16.64B 27.99B 34.52B
Net Margin 26.82% 27.09% 23.17% 22.13% 20.93% 21.17% 21.84% 14.19% 19.71% 20.71%

Table 13. Google Efficiency Ratios

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Asset Turnover 0.52 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.50 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.58 0.57
Inventory Turnover 37.68 34.01 38.22 39.13 57.63 131.11 60.85 53.79 71.96 116.39
Receivable Turnover 6.14 5.36 5.91 6.08 5.39 6.34 5.92 6.45 5.88 5.81

Table 14. Google Investment Ratios

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
ROE (Return on Equity) 16.74 16.10 15.07 13.11 13.15 14.00 8.30 17.30 17.04 18.09
ROA (Return of Assets) 13.41 12.31 11.86 10.54 11.08 11.62 6.41 13.20 12.44 12.59
ROI (Return on Investment) 15.92 15.46 14.69 12.71 13.36 13.62 8.09 16.92 16.67 17.05

Table 15. Google Gearing Ratios

For only $13.00 $11.05/page
you can get a custom-written
academic paper
according to your instructions
Learn more
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Debt Capital 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05
Debt Equity 0.07 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.06

Conclusion

In comparison, the three companies generally have positive dynamics of financial indicators, taking into account even some drops in 2012-2015. Constantly growing profits and attractiveness for investors, independence from debts compared to other competing companies distinguish these companies on the market. Amazon, however, differs from Microsoft and Google by small indicators of net profit margins, which in the long term can bring certain benefits that will leave competitors far behind. Amazon, with a vast range of products and services sold, has pretty good asset turnover indicators. This work does not consider 2021 and the impact of the pandemic since there is still no available information on these companies. Given the pandemic, the analysis would have included many more factors that had to be taken into account in assessing the data of the three companies.

Reference List

Al-Marzooqi, M. B., & Nobanee, H. (2020). ‘Financial Analysis of Amazon’. Available at SSRN 3647442.

Alphabet Financial Ratios for Analysis 2005-2021 | GOOGL. Web.

Amazon Financial Ratios for Analysis 2005-2021 | AMZN. Web.

Bogdan, S., Bareša, S., & Ivanović, S. (2012) ‘Measuring liquidity on stock market: Impact on liquidity ratio’, Tourism and Hospitality Management, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 183-193. Web.

Chua, A. Y., & Banerjee, S. (2017) ‘Analyzing review efficacy on Amazon. com: Does the rich grow richer?’, Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 75, pp. 501-509. Web.

Hahn, Y., Kim, D., & Youn, M. K. (2018) ‘A Brief Analysis of Amazon and Distribution Strategy’, The Journal of Distribution Science, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 17-20. Web.

Hazlett, T. W. (2020) ‘US Antitrust Policy in the Age of Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Netflix and Facebook’, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Netflix and Facebook.

Kim, D. I., & Choi, S. I. (2019) ‘The Analysis of the Relationship between the Review Scale and Posting Information of Company and Purchasing Patterns-Focusing on Amazon and Google Users, Journal of the Korea Convergence Society, vol. 10, no. 10, pp. 153-160. Web.

Microsoft Financial Ratios for Analysis 2005-2021 | MSFT. Web.

Nariswari, T. N., & Nugraha, N. M. (2020) ‘Profit Growth: Impact of Net Profit Margin, Gross Profit Margin and Total Assests Turnover’, International Journal of Finance & Banking Studies (2147-4486), vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 87-96. Web.

Sadq, Z. M., Sabir, H. N., & Saeed, V. S. H. (2018) ‘Analyzing the Amazon success strategies’, Journal of process management. New Technologies, vol. 6, no. 4. Web.

Smith, B., & Linden, G. (2017) ‘Two decades of recommender systems at Amazon. Com’, IEEE Internet Computing, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 12-18.

Wegmann, A., et al. (2018). Coopetition and ecosystems: case of amazon.com. London: The Routledge Companion to Coopetition Strategies.

Wells, J. R., Danskin, G., & Ellsworth, G. (2018) ‘Amazon. com, 2018’, Harvard Business School Case Study, vol. 716, pp. 316-402.

Zhu, F., & Liu, Q. (2018) ‘Competing with complementors: An empirical look at Amazon.com’, Strategic Management Journal, vol. 39, no. 10, pp. 2618-2642. Web.

Cite this paper

Select style

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2023, January 20). Amazon, Microsoft and Google Firms’ Financial Analysis. Retrieved from https://studycorgi.com/amazon-microsoft-and-google-firms-financial-analysis/

Reference

StudyCorgi. (2023, January 20). Amazon, Microsoft and Google Firms’ Financial Analysis. https://studycorgi.com/amazon-microsoft-and-google-firms-financial-analysis/

Work Cited

"Amazon, Microsoft and Google Firms’ Financial Analysis." StudyCorgi, 20 Jan. 2023, studycorgi.com/amazon-microsoft-and-google-firms-financial-analysis/.

* Hyperlink the URL after pasting it to your document

1. StudyCorgi. "Amazon, Microsoft and Google Firms’ Financial Analysis." January 20, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/amazon-microsoft-and-google-firms-financial-analysis/.


Bibliography


StudyCorgi. "Amazon, Microsoft and Google Firms’ Financial Analysis." January 20, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/amazon-microsoft-and-google-firms-financial-analysis/.

References

StudyCorgi. 2023. "Amazon, Microsoft and Google Firms’ Financial Analysis." January 20, 2023. https://studycorgi.com/amazon-microsoft-and-google-firms-financial-analysis/.

References

StudyCorgi. (2023) 'Amazon, Microsoft and Google Firms’ Financial Analysis'. 20 January.

This paper was written and submitted to our database by a student to assist your with your own studies. You are free to use it to write your own assignment, however you must reference it properly.

If you are the original creator of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal.