Bill,
Just a few posts to ponder:
Message 5657484
Message 5659704
Message 5661163
"To:Glenn D. Rudolph who wrote (15914)
From: William Harmond Thursday, Sep 3, 1998 8:49 AM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 134727
>>But you ought to really think about AMZN fundamentals.
I think you and I have different definitions for "fundamentals". Your is based on current financial performance, mine is based on execution. I maintain that that Amazon's financial performance curve (while not acceptable by your current standard) will grow much more steeply than you imagine, because they are carefully carving a defensible piece what will be a very large pie. That may sound like smoke and mirrors, but to each his own."
"To:Skeeter Bug who wrote (16589)
From: William Harmond Thursday, Sep 10, 1998 1:55 AM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 134728
There's a difference between "10,000 Windows 98 Secrets" and "Why Amazon is Unstoppable"."
"To:Skeeter Bug who wrote (16596)
From: William Harmond Thursday, Sep 10, 1998 8:35 AM
Respond to of 134728
>>as a permabull
I'm not always bullish, but markets' ups and downs don't have much to do with long-term prospects for companies like Amazon.
"
"To:Jay8088 who wrote (16608)
From: William Harmond Thursday, Sep 10, 1998 9:08 AM
View Replies (2) | Respond to of 134728
>>And the fundamentals are positive?
I think so. "
"To:H James Morris who wrote (16772)
From: William Harmond Thursday, Sep 10, 1998 7:14 PM
View Replies (2) | Respond to of 134729
>>What that might be?
Top of mind: Strong financial controls, effective brand-building, line extensions, robust infrastructure buildout, share gains."
"To:Glenn D. Rudolph who wrote (16806)
From: William Harmond Thursday, Sep 10, 1998 9:00 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 134729
>>They [are] projected to lose $250 million over the next two years from operations.
The projections are probably wrong, no? They have been off the mark to date. "
"To:Glenn D. Rudolph who wrote (16809)
From: William Harmond Thursday, Sep 10, 1998 9:03 PM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 134729
I don't know. Top-line will probably grow faster than estimates, and may outpace the expense estimates. "
"To:Derrick P. who wrote (16918)
From: William Harmond Friday, Sep 11, 1998 7:01 PM
View Replies (4) | Respond to of 134729
>>Any possibility that they might be overestimating?
Since Street estimates have proven low each quarter, you should probably be asking whether they are underestimating.
>>Can you say glut
Glut of what?"
"To:R. D. Buschman who wrote (16923)
From: William Harmond Friday, Sep 11, 1998 7:59 PM
View Replies (6) | Respond to of 134729
>>What was that, $65?
Exactly. $65 even.
Considering that Amazon has a 75%+ (and growing) share of online book sales, but less than a .7% share of $82 billion annual worldwide retail book sales, I decided not to wait for $65.
Wanna talk music, etc. now? :)"
"To:R. D. Buschman who wrote (16941)
From: William Harmond Friday, Sep 11, 1998 9:27 PM
View Replies (5) | Respond to of 134729
There's nothing wrong with holding Amazon through the market's gyrations. I believe that Amazon is an exceptional long-term investment at $40, $140, or $75.
You could have paid $5 or $3 for AOL in 1994.
"
"To:William Harmond who wrote (16925)
From: llamaphlegm Friday, Sep 11, 1998 9:30 PM
Respond to of 134729
<<<<< Exactly. $65 even.
Considering that Amazon has a 75%+ (and growing) share of online book sales, but
less than a .7% share of $82 billion annual worldwide retail book sales, I decided not
to wait for $65.
Wanna talk music, etc. now? :)>>>>
William:
You sir are wayyyyy too kind. I'd love to talk music now and even books (really, you've got to stop making this so easy on me).
cbs.marketwatch.com.
he House site was inaccessible.
CDnow deal is music to Yahoo! ears
As Amazon.com (AMZN) had done a couple of
weeks ago, music e-tailer CDnow (CDNW) agreed
to fork over an undisclosed amount of money to
extend its distribution deal with Yahoo! (YHOO) to
many of the search service's international sites,
including those in France, Germany, Italy, Denmark,
Sweden, Norway and Canada. As is becoming more
typical for this kind of deal, the financial terms were
not disclosed. CDnow already signed a one-year
$3.9 million deal to be the premier music merchant
on Yahoo!'s main site.
So, what will it be. Either amzn's book ad plan with yahoo gives it a huge advantage over others in books and cdnow's similar deal gives it a huge advantage over others (including amzn) in cds or not.
If so, amzn ain't going too far in music. If not, amzn has even less of a head start than you'd like to pretend.
Almost forgot books.
interactive.wsj.com.
Meanwhile, both Barnes & Noble and Borders are seriously
turning their attention to the on-line space, and both arguably have brand
names stronger than even Amazon.
....
But Amazon has a lot of work to do refining its model. Ron Ploof, of
IceGroup, a Wakefield, Mass., firm that advises companies on electronic
commerce, concluded in a recent report that Amazon is losing $7.15 for each
Amazon.com order processed as it spends to establish its brand identity and
work out logistical kinks in shipping, handling, returns, payment processing,
credit-card fraud and inventory management.
Dear William, with these kind of #s in an on line industry sector in which it faced 0000000000000000000000000000000
(that's none, my friend) competition for over 2 years, I can only wish amzn the same luck in growth and sequentially increasing losses in the music industry that it has had in the book industry.
What's that you say? It can't happen. AMZN will cut its losses. Because, it now faces much slower growth in the book industry given the deep pocketed and recently arrived competition. BKS.com? Music industry even worse? Worse margins? More competition? First mover "advantage" has already gone to others? AMZN is still seen largely as a book store? Overpaid for its acquisitions? Insider sales growing?
Good thing you jumped back in so enthusiastically yesterday.
Perhaps re-reading the two articles posted here (and TMF) in the past two day about what was termed obvious manipulation by day traders and a few institutions would be far more useful in explaining the real reasons behind the stock's rise, rather than the half-hearted attempts (can't wait for the music) you're putting forward for justifying this insane stock price.
Have a great weekend --
LP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To:Derrick P. who wrote (16942)
From: William Harmond Friday, Sep 11, 1998 9:34 PM
View Replies (3) | Respond to of 134729
That kind of "glut" doesn't matter. What matters is market share."
"To:Derrick P. who wrote (16952)
From: William Harmond Saturday, Sep 12, 1998 12:09 AM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 134729
>>competition could soon obtain much of that market share.
If Barnes & Noble isn't doing it, who will? "
"To:Skeeter Bug who wrote (16965)
From: William Harmond Saturday, Sep 12, 1998 1:20 AM
View Replies (1) | Respond to of 134729
The "and growing" part was mine, which is supported by Barnesandnoble.com's slower sales-growth rate. If B&N's sales are growing slower than Amazon's, then Amazon is gaining share. "
"To:Skeeter Bug who wrote (16967)
From: William Harmond Saturday, Sep 12, 1998 1:45 AM
View Replies (3) | Respond to of 134729
>>there are new players all the time. growing a 75% market share is darn near impossible in this type of business. ...but i'd bet it is declining. not that this is bad. it is to be expected in the real world.
Not necessarily, and this is critical to the Amazon high-valuation rationale. If Amazon were losing share, I'd be the first to admit that the valuation premium shouldn't be there.
Look at it this way: Amazon has just a 2.5% share of total US book sales. Through the principle of increasing returns, it is entirely possible to garner a larger share of the online-only business as Amazon penetrates deeper into the entire market because the online business becomes more and more efficient and therefore more competitive vs online competitors as it grows, because it leverages its brand and its infrastructure. Starbucks, McDonalds (in the 60's and 70's), and Walmart (in the late 80's) are good parallels to this concept. "
"To:llamaphlegm who wrote (16978)
From: William Harmond Saturday, Sep 12, 1998 2:14 PM
View Replies (4) | Respond to of 134729
>>Where in the world are you getting ANY data to back this up????
Amazon.com (AMZN): AOL - Part Deux!, Morgan Stanley Research, August 4, 1998:
Profitability: Operating losses as a percentage of revenues have consistently declined. Scale has allowed AMZN's costs to decline as a percentage of sales.
Mary's statement is supported Amazon's quarterly reports. Sales and Marketing as a percentage of revenue for quarters ending: 6/97 27.9%, 9/97 28.9%, 12/97 24.7%, 3/98 22.3%, 6/98 22.8%.
As I pointed out, Amazon's sales and marketing expenses (23% of sales) are a fraction of CDNow's (77%), and N2K's (107%). " |
