Ansgar John / Sinaas

Thursday, October 22, 2026

Selling socks is not buying stocks

An explanation of our paper https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=7644027

Retailers should stop judging products by sales revenue and gross margin percentages, and instead measure how many actual cash dollars (or euros) a product generates per unit of their scarcest resource (

CM_i / X_i

)

1. Percentages Were a Workaround, Not a Law

Before barcodes and computers, stores couldn't track exact profits on thousands of individual items, so they used total sales and gross margin percentages as a rough shortcut.
Today, computers track every single item sold, making that shortcut obsolete. Yet textbooks, software (like SAP and Oracle), and buyer bonuses still use percentages out of sheer habit.
As the founders of IKEA and Trader Joe's pointed out, you pay your bills with cash dollars, not percentages.

2. Price the Bottleneck ( $RCM_i = CM_i / X_i$ )

A store's true operating profit is the sum of total cash contribution margins ( $CM = \text{unit profit} \times \text{quantity sold}$ ) minus fixed store costs.
Because every store has a physical limit (a bottleneck, $X$ ), items must compete for it. You maximize profit by maximizing cash contribution per unit of that bottleneck:
- Floor Space ( $X = \text{m}^2$ ): In 1906, C&A cut its profit per coat from 8 guilders to 1 guilder. Volume jumped 12x in the same space, raising profit per square meter from 8 to 12 guilders and quadrupling company net profit by 1910.
- SKU Slots ( $X = \text{SKU}$ ): ALDI limits its stores to about 600 items. A computer making $20 per unit beats a staple making $1 per pack in that slot, regardless of percentages.
- Capital ( $X = \text{Capital}$ ): Only when a merchant is strictly limited by cash to buy inventory does return on capital (like GMROI) become the right metric. (Most supermarkets and discounters get paid by customers before they pay suppliers, so cash isn't their bottleneck—space is.)

3. Ignore Fixed Overhead

Accounting methods that chop up fixed store overhead (like rent or headquarters salaries) and assign it to individual items only muddy the waters. Fixed costs don't change when you swap one product for another.
The only true cost of putting an item on a shelf is opportunity cost—the cash contribution you gave up by not putting a better item in that exact same spot.

Why Ignoring Sales is Confusing and Counter-Intuitive (The Sock Example)

Imagine a retailer comparing two pairs of socks that take up the exact same shelf space and sell the exact same number of pairs

Sock A costs the store €2 to buy and sells for €4 (Profit = €2 per pair).
Sock B costs the store €1 to buy and sells for €3 (Profit = €2 per pair).

From a strict cash profit standpoint (

CM_i / X_i

), Sock A and Sock B are identical

. They both put €2 of hard cash in the register per pair and generate the exact same profit per square meter of shelf space

However, telling a traditional retailer to ignore the sales number and treat them equally feels completely backwards for three reasons:

The "Sales Volume" Illusion: If the store sells 1,000 pairs of Sock B instead of Sock A, top-line Sales drop from €4,000 to €3,000. Even though the store keeps the exact same €2,000 in cash to pay rent and salaries, retail buyers are trained (and paid bonuses) to grow top-line sales. Watching revenue drop by 25% feels like failure, even when bottom-line cash is unchanged.
The "Stock Trader" Brain Trap: Retailers often confuse selling goods with investing capital. A stock investor looks at Sock A (€2 cost $\rightarrow$ €4 sale, a 100% markup / 50% gross margin) and applies that same percentage rule to Sock B, pricing it at €2 (€1 cost $\rightarrow$ €2 sale). They pat themselves on the back for keeping a consistent percentage margin, not realizing they just cut their actual cash profit in half (from €2 to €1 per pair) for that shelf space.
The Kmart Trap: Conversely, chasing high percentages without looking at space velocity is fatal. Kmart executives once praised zippers and curtain hooks as their "most profitable items" because they had huge percentage margins. In reality, they sold slowly for tiny dollar amounts, starving the store of total cash per square meter.

The Takeaway: Top-line sales revenue just includes the money you collect on behalf of your supplier (€2 for Sock A vs. €1 for Sock B). You don't get to keep your supplier's money, and you can't pay the landlord with margin percentages

. Only the cash contribution left over per unit of shelf space matters

Ansgar John / Sinaas

Monday, April 13, 2099

Valuation of all stocks listed in Holland AEX All Share AAX: Benjamin Graham Defensive Investor method

Thursday, October 22, 2026

Selling socks is not buying stocks

Why Ignoring Sales is Confusing and Counter-Intuitive (The Sock Example)