Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
My original post was talking about expansion, not relocation. Moving from a profitable location to a non-profitable one obviously makes no sense, but for example a grocery chain opening up a new store in an area where they will make less than in an existing area of operations does, and it happens because otherwise they are losing out on that market and risking their competitors taking away that potential share of the market. Every Walmart doesn't make the same amount of profit, but they aren't going to not open new stores just because the new store won't make the same amount of money as an existing store. If the return on investment is still high enough they will continue to open new stores to remain competitive and maintain their share of the market, that was my point. Hopefully that clarifies it for you.
|
What if the changes proposed seriously challenge the return on investment calculation as to actually change the investment decision? Have you considered that a lot of the policy changes are actually that material for a huge swath of businesses in Alberta?
Or is it simply that you can only really see or understand what you can see six feet in front of you and that as long as there are new stores going up in places in Alberta that you feel comfortable in your conclusion that the government can continue making policy changes that hurt profitability of businesses and that the negative consequences are overblown? Maybe there would be more McDonald's and Wal Mart's going up if there were better policy. Do you consider the potential lost opportunity costs of investments not made?