Corporate Finance Explained | The Economics of Scale

[00:00:00 – 00:01:09]
You know, there’s this paradox in business that I just can’t shake. It’s this thing where for some companies getting bigger is like, I don’t know, unlocking a cheat code. They just get stronger, more profitable. The bigger they get, it’s like the wind is at their back. And then you’ve got the others. Right. The others, the ones where growth is almost like a poison. They get huge and suddenly the wheels just come off. They collapse. And the easy answer is always, oh, the winner just had a better brand or maybe they had more market share. Which as we know is almost never the whole story. Exactly. When you actually, you know, pop the hood and look inside, it’s rarely just about being popular. It’s about the physics of their business model. That is a perfect way to put it, the physics of it. And what we’re really talking about today is, well, it’s one of the most powerful and frankly misunderstood concepts in corporate finance. We’re talking about economies of scale. Economies of scale. It really does sound like something from a dusty Econ 101 textbook, doesn’t it? But today we’re going to blow the dust off that term. We’re doing a deep dive into some serious corporate finance resources, really focusing on what they call the scale of advantage.

[00:01:10 – 00:08:48]
And honestly, if you want to understand why the business world looks the way it does, you know, why Amazon is Amazon and why some of the really promising companies just hit a brick wall, you have to get this concept. It’s not just a buzzword. It’s the the mathematical reality of how growth affects your margins, your pricing power, everything. So our mission today is to get past the dictionary definition. We want to get into the gears of this thing. We’re going to look at the Titans, of course, Walmart, Amazon, Costco. But I think the most valuable part of this deep dive is actually going to be the counter examples. We are going to dissect why a company like Blue Apron, which had all the hype and massive growth, struggled with this exact idea. It’s such a cautionary tale. It really shows you what happens when you mistake growth for scale. They are not the same thing. Let’s unpack that. But before we get to the winners and the losers, let’s just establish the ground rules. When we say economies of scale, what are we actually, you know, talking about? At its most basic level, it’s when your average costs go down as your output goes up. Okay. So simply put, I make more stuff and it costs me less to make each one. Precisely. But hold on, let me play devil’s advocate. Logic says if I make more stuff, I need more materials, more people, more space, my total costs have to go up. So why does the per unit cost go down? You’re absolutely right. Your total costs do go up. But the magic ingredient here is a concept called fixed cost leverage. Fixed cost leverage. Okay. This sounds like the key. Think about all the costs in a business that don’t really care how much you sell. They don’t grow one for one with revenue. So things like your distribution centers, your big tech platform, corporate overhead, you know, HR, illegal, all that factory equipment itself. Right. Whether you sell one widget or a million of them, you still had to build the factory and pay the lawyers. Those are your fixed costs. So imagine you spend, say $10 million building a state of the art warehouse. If you only move a thousand items through it, each of those items has to carry a massive chunk of that 10 million bucks. It’s incredibly inefficient. The cost per unit would be astronomical. Exactly. But as you crank up the volume and you start selling a million units, 10 million units, that huge fixed cost gets, well, it gets spread out like spreading butter on more and more bread. So the slice of the overhead pie that each product has to pay for just gets thinner and thinner. And that’s it. Your per unit cost drops and that directly expands your margins. This is why getting big actually matters. It’s not about vanity. It’s about mathematically lowering your cost of doing business. And the competitive implications of that are just huge. I mean, this isn’t just about saving a few pennies, is it? It changes how you compete. It completely reshapes the battlefield. If my unit costs are lower than yours, just because I’m bigger, I have options you don’t. I can price my stuff more aggressively to steal your customer. You can start a price war you know you can win. I’ll still be making a profit while you’re bleeding cash, just trying to keep up. Or I can absorb pressure. If the economy turns or my raw material costs go up, a giant can just eat that cost, a smaller player can’t. Or, and this is what we see in tech all the time, the giant takes those extra profits and plows them back into the business. R&D automation, making their costs even lower. It becomes a flywheel. The big get more efficient, which makes them more profitable, which lets them get even bigger and more efficient. So if you’re a finance person listening or just someone trying to analyze a stock, what are the signals? You can’t just look at revenue and say, yep, they’re stealing. Oh, absolutely not. Revenue alone is a vanity metric. You have to look at efficiency ratios. Finance teams are tracking contribution margins. They’re looking at cost per unit trends over time. You need to see that cost line going down as the volume line goes up. They’re basically asking, is this business getting easier and cheaper to run as it gets bigger? That’s the question. They’re capulating breakeven volumes. They want to see that fixed cost leverage in action on the spreadsheet. Okay. That’s the theory. Fixed costs get spread out. Margins go up. World domination. Let’s see it in the real world. We have to start with the classic example. Walmart. Has to be Walmart. You can’t talk about scale without talking about Bentonville. No, it’s the textbook case. Walmart’s entire business is a monument to this mechanism. Think about their logistics network, their procurement teams, their tech infrastructure. I mean, thousands of stores, these vast distribution centers. Right. And they spread those massive central costs across all of those stores. But for Walmart, it actually goes a level deeper because of their sheer size, they unlock a second advantage. Purchasing power. The cost of goods sold advantage. Yes. If you’re buying more detergent than anyone else on the planet, you’re going to get a better price than the corner store. You’ll get a better price than Target. It directly lowers their cost of goods sold or cut geese. And here’s the strategic part. Walmart doesn’t just pocket that extra profit, do they? No. And that’s the genius of their everyday low prices model. Because their costs are so low, they can keep their prices lower than anybody else and still be profitable. So the scale supports the pricing. And the low prices drive more volume. Which in turn drives more scale. It’s a self-reinforcing loop. It’s a fortress built on math. It guarantees consistent operating margins, even while they’re undercutting everyone. OK, now let’s pivot to a more modern giant, Amazon. Is Amazon just doing the Walmart playbook or is this a different animal? It’s similar in principle, but the mechanism requires a different kind of patience. Amazon is the poster child for what you call scale driven efficiency requiring upfront investment. Right. We all remember the stories. Amazon running on razor thin margins or no margins for years and years. For decades, really. People made fun of them for never making a profit. But Jeff Bezos understood the math better than anyone. Amazon had to make these enormous upfront investments in fulfillment networks, those giant warehouses and in their tech. And building that network is incredibly expensive. You’re burning through billions before you even have the volume to justify it. Right. In the early days, their fixed costs were massive compared to their sales, so they accepted losses to gain scale. But here’s the genius of it. Once that infrastructure is built, the marginal cost of the next package is tiny. The cost of adding one more box to a truck that’s already driving through a neighborhood is practically zero. Exactly. The cost advantage is just compound over time. As they get bigger, that huge fulfillment network becomes cheaper and cheaper to operate on a per unit basis. They built a machine that gets more efficient the harder you run it. They were playing the long game. The longest game, which brings us to our third example. And this one is maybe the most unique take on the whole theory. Costco. Ah, Costco. I love Costco. Mostly for the dollar 50 hot dog, I’ll admit. But the business model is brilliant. It’s fascinating because they take this idea of economies of scale and then apply this philosophy of volume over margin to an extreme. They operate on paper thin margins on their products, right? They’re not trying to get rich on a single jar of pickles. Not at all. In fact, they capped their markups. They basically promised the customer, we will not mark this up more than X percent. They push massive volume. And that scale, just like with Walmart, lets them negotiate incredible prices from suppliers. But here’s the twist. Instead of keeping that profit, what do they do? They pass it on. They lower the price for the customer. They pass the savings on to drive loyalty and get you back in the store. Yeah. But here’s the secret sauce that people miss. The membership fee. Ah, right. The card. Because their scale lets them sell all their goods, basically a break even. That membership fee is almost pure profit.

[00:08:49 – 00:11:22]
Their scale drives the volume that makes the membership worth buying. So the scale changes the business model entirely. They’re not just a retailer. They’re kind of a club that monetizes access to its own scale. That’s a great way to put it. It shows that scale can create durable profits even without high markups. You don’t have to gouge the customer if your scale is big enough. OK, so we’ve seen the promised land. Walmart, Amazon, Costco. It’s easy to look at them and just think, OK, I get it. The secret is just get big. And that is the dangerous assumption. That’s the trap. So does getting bigger always fix the numbers? No. And this is where we have to look at the other side of the coin. We need to talk about Blue Apron. Blue Apron, the meal kit company. I remember when they launched, the hype was just off the charts. Everyone thought this was the future of food. And they grew incredibly fast. The revenue growth was massive in the beginning. Investors were just pouring money in, assuming that the Amazon Effect would kick in. They thought once Blue Apron gets big enough, the costs will fall and the profits will show up. But they never did. They never did. Blue Apron really struggled to scale profitably. Why, though, if they were selling more and more meal kits, shouldn’t their costs have gone down just like Walmart’s? You’d think so. But you have to look at their cost structure. Walmart and Amazon have high fixed costs. Blue Apron’s costs were dominated by variable costs. Variable costs. So the costs that go up with every single unit you sell. Precisely. Think about what’s in a meal kit. The fresh ingredients, the special packaging for every single box. The ice packs. The labor to pack it. The shipping for these heavy boxes. Right. None of that is fixed. If I sell a million boxes, I need a million little portions of salmon and a million ice packs. Those costs rise right alongside your volume. There’s very little leverage to be had. If you sell twice as many kits, you have to buy twice as many carrots. You can’t just spread the cost of a carrot. So there’s no big factory cost to spread out? Not in the same way, no. The fixed cost leverage never really materialized because the fixed part of their cost base was just tiny compared to the variable part. That is such a critical distinction. It is. So as they sold more, their total costs just rose and locked up with the revenue. And then it got worse because they had so much churn, people canceling. They had to spend a fortune on marketing just to replace the customers they were losing. So getting bigger didn’t solve the problem. It just made the problem bigger. The lesson is if variable costs dominate your business, growing larger doesn’t automatically make you more profitable.

[00:11:23 – 00:17:24]
Scale fails when the unit economics don’t improve. You’re just losing money, but faster. That’s well, that’s terrifying for a business owner. You’re running faster and faster on the treadmill, thinking you’re about to take off, but you’re not actually moving forward. Which brings us to a concept finance teams use to measure this exact risk. It’s called operational leverage. OK, let’s get into the finance weeds for a minute. We’ve used the word leverage. But what is operational leverage specifically? Operational leverage basically measures how sensitive your company’s profits are to a change in your revenue. It’s a way of looking at the risk-reward profile of your cost structure. How do you visualize that? Think of it like a seesaw. A company with high operational leverage has high fixed costs and low variable costs. A software company is a perfect example. OK. High fixed costs to write the code. Very low variable costs. It costs almost nothing to sell another copy. Right. So the upside is incredible. When your revenue grows, since your costs are mostly flat, your profit just explodes upward. Every new dollar of sales is almost pure profit. That sounds like the dream. It is until revenue falls because those costs are fixed. You still have to pay all those developers. So if your revenue dips even a little bit, the pain is severe. The downside is incredibly sharp. So it’s an amplifier. It makes the good times better and the bad times much, much worse. It’s a double-edged sword. Exactly. Now, compare that to, say, a consulting firm that’s low operational leverage. If you want more revenue, you have to hire more consultants. High variable costs. Right. So if revenue grows, profit grows too, but much more slowly. But if revenue falls, you can let go of consultants. Your costs drop with your revenue. It’s safer, but it’s less explosive. I see. So this is why finance teams are always stress testing their models. They’re trying to figure out what that amplifier effect looks like. They have to know if sales drop by 10 percent. Do we lose 50 percent of our profit? Because with high operational leverage, that can absolutely happen. It really explains why tech stocks can be so volatile compared to like a utility company. The market is pricing in that leverage. That’s exactly what’s happening. The market loves the upside of leverage, but it absolutely panics at the downside. So if we take all this into account, fixed costs, variable costs, this idea of leverage, how do leaders actually use this? I mean, it’s not just about spreadsheets, right? It’s about making decisions. It all comes down to capital allocation. This is the core job of leadership and finance. Give me an example of a tough decision where this math is front and center. Well, think about investing ahead of demand. Do we build the giant factory before we have the orders? That’s the whole if you build it, they will come problem. Exactly. The finance team’s job is to help answer. Is the potential scale benefit worth that massive risk? They’re the ones who have to justify taking a hit on margins today like Amazon did for the promise of market dominance tomorrow. They have to figure out if you’re burning cash to build a fortress or if you’re just setting money on fire. Precisely. And on the flip side, they have to be the ones to wave the red flag when growth is destroying value like Blue Apron. They have to say, stop. Getting bigger isn’t helping. So they’re watching specific metrics, not just total sales. They’re watching gross margin trends. They’re watching something called capacity utilization. Capacity utilization. That sounds like a manufacturing term. It is, but it applies to almost anything. Go back to that factory. If you build a massive plant that can make a million cars, which gives you potentially amazing economies of scale, but you only end up making 10,000 cars. Your cost per car is going to be terrible. You’ll be horrific because that giant fixed cost is being crushed onto just a few units. You’re underutilized. So building the scale is only half the battle. You have to actually fill it. You have to sweat the assets. The team has to ensure the economics are actually improving, not just the top-line revenue number. If you build scale, but you don’t use it, you’ve just built yourself a very expensive anchor. This feels like the missing piece in so many business conversations. We focus on the product, the marketing, but we kind of ignore the engine room. We do. And that’s why you see companies that look great on paper, great product, happy customers, but they just bleed money forever. The engine isn’t calibrated, right? So, wrapping this up, what does this all mean for the listener, whether they’re analyzing a stock, running a business, or just trying to understand the world? It means we have to look past the top-line growth. It’s so easy to get dazzled by those fastest-growing lists. You see a company doubling revenue and you just assume winner. We all do. But the core truth here is that big companies win when scale lowers their costs faster than complexity raises them. That’s a good line. Scale must lower costs faster than complexity raises them. Because getting bigger always adds complexity. Bureaucracy, more meetings, things slow down. Scale is the only thing that can fight back against that. The goal isn’t just size. Size is vanity. The goal is sustainable profitability. And scale is just a tool to get you there. I love that. It really changes how you look at headlines about mergers or big expansion plans. You stop asking how big will they get and you start asking how efficient will they get? That is a real question. So here’s a thought I want to leave everyone with. The next time you see a company chasing that rapid growth, putting up those huge numbers, just ask yourself this. Are they building a platform like Amazon where every new customer is actually cheaper to serve than the last one? Or are they just buying more ingredients like Blue Apron, where every new customer just adds more costs? Are they building leverage, or are they just building noise? That’s the question. Indeed. We want to give a huge thanks to the Managerial Economics Resources from CFI for providing the framework for this deep dive. Yeah. Essential reading for anyone who wants to get into the real nuts and bolts of finance. Thanks for diving in with us. We’ll see you on the next one.