upvote
It’s potentially a gross misallocation of capital.

Right now, the 5 and 10 year US treasury rates are 4.2% and 4.47%. The 30 year is 4.99%.

A business with a return on invested capital less than that is in fact operating at a loss. Unless there is reason to believe the situation will change in the near-to-mid future, such a business would literally be better off liquidating everything and just investing in treasuries.

You would need access to internal data to figure out their ROIC, but a 3% margin is not promising.

reply
Who needs goods and services when you can just buy infinity US treasuries?~
reply
This is exactly how the Fed influences the business cycle.
reply
> It's fascinating how "profitable but low margins" equates to "struggling" to so many.

A high revenue but low margin business is a lost opportunity to invest that same revenue in a different area with better margins.

reply
If you shut down the things that bring in $5 billion revenue, you no longer have $5 billion revenue, you have a gamble that some other industry can ramp up to that quickly. $5 billion has never been "quick money". (Inflation would have to get a whole lot worse for that to happen and that point the company has too many other problems.) That's "Opportunity Cost" among other bits of what used to be past corporate wisdom that companies have seemed to have forgotten.
reply
People are pointing to treasury bonds that would give a similar rate of return with no risk at all.
reply
Yeah, and I'm pointing out the opportunity cost of that is just silly. It's not a practical exercise in any way. Suppose there was some way for Microsoft to stop exactly on a dime, magically collect all $5bn in gross revenue for a year and managed to put that all into US treasury bonds without tanking the interest rate/market value of those by entirely eliminating their products and goods that generate that $5bn revenue. Microsoft does what next? Wait 30 years for the bonds to mature and collect $5bn + ~4% compounded? 30 years that they could use $5bn/year gross revenue to all sorts of advantages, but they only have $5bn/year if they sell similar products and goods?

The time value of money suggests money invested today is more powerful than money returned tomorrow, even if you magically get the highest possible rate of return.

The opportunity costs say that if you jump ship on an entire industry don't expect to have the same revenue next year.

I love this weird short term thinking with long term mistakes that treasury bonds are the right benchmark for something like Microsoft's margins and net revenue. It's really fun to watch all the armchair capitalists come out to play that seem to follow quarterly reports like hawks but seem to act like they never took an actual economics course.

reply
It’s not meant to be taken literally, it’s just a comparison to point out that the return isn’t really very good considering the risks inherent in game development, especially the type of AAA games that Microsoft’s acquisitions put out there.
reply
Right? It seems intuitive that markets can eventually saturate, and that there's a floor for how low you can get costs, so growth can't be infinite. Maybe you could make an argument that you want to grow in scale with inflation so that your profit doesn't eventually become meaningless, but you don't need to "reset" your multi-billion dollar revenue business to achieve that; you can get that by just bumping prices in line with inflation every few years.
reply
>It's fascinating how "profitable but low margins" equates to "struggling" to so many.

If one bank pays 4.25% on your savings and the other pays 3.25%, which one are you going to chose to put your money in all else being equal? Why is the 3.25% one not a good choice despite you still making money?

People inherently understand business, they use the same principles in their daily life, but they just get confused on making the connections.

reply
A bank offering 3.25% isn't "struggling" either. Real struggling for a bank looks like bank runs and depression.

But you are talking the "consumer perspective". Right now the median interest on consumer savings accounts is less than 1%. [1] Someone getting 3.25% from their bank isn't "struggling" compared to their luckier neighbor that found a 4.25%. They are probably closer to the top 10% or top 1% and have a larger savings deposit and/or high credit/sustainably low debt. Most Americans can just envy that, not qualify for it.

There are opportunity costs in moving your money from a stable bank that you have an existing relationship and shopping it around to get that perfect 4.25% highest margin that you can find. Transfers are usually free for consumers, but a bank may give you a lower APR on your credit cards and a cheaper checking account if you keep your accounts all in the same place with that bank. Trying to move all of that at once for a similar deal at the 4.25% bank can risk hard credit checks and account closure notices that consequently drop your credit rating, including possibly enough to make the bank at 4.25% question your stability and change their mind on the deal.

I think consumers actually today have a better idea of the risks of these kinds of "small improvement" things than large companies. Wall Street is a much worse "Credit Rating Bureau" than the three (truly terrible) consumer Bureaus. Businesses have grown so large they no longer understand Opportunity Cost at any real level. If you shut down the things that bring in $5 billion revenue, you no longer have $5 billion revenue, you have a gamble that some other industry can ramp up to that quickly. $5 billion has never been "quick money". (Inflation would have to get a whole lot worse for that to happen and that point the company has too many other problems.)

[1] https://wallethub.com/edu/savings-account-statistics/143529

reply
So you would chose the 3.25% bank or the 4.25% bank? Because it's a fictional illustrative example of "people always prefer more money", not a case study on banking lol

Microsoft's ownership wants to put their money into the 4.25% bank, not the 3.25% one. Don't lose your mind overthinking it.

reply
you think you have some amazing analogy but it's utterly nonsensical. where is microsoft putting this money that is going to earn it more? are they low on cash on hand? why are they not investing every dollar they have on these magical free returns that just need more cash?
reply
>where is microsoft putting this money that is going to earn it more?

Sure,

https://news.xbox.com/en-us/2026/07/06/resetting-xbox/

reply
yeah good post, it does nothing to support your point or answer my question, thanks for sharing.
reply
Microsoft funds xbox, fyi.
reply
Xbox makes an enormous amount of money from a few long running properties (the letter in question mentions Mojang and King), but basically every big move and acquisition they have made for the past 10 years has been catastrophic.
reply
64c lost for every dollar invested. What a massive waste. What a loss for both shareholders and the gaming community. Take it out back and shoot it.
reply
deleted
reply