Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric Wells who wrote (68668)	7/21/1999 8:17:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164685

CMGI and any VC firm, of course their definition of profitability is quite different

To: Eric Wells who wrote (68668)	7/21/1999 8:47:00 PM
From: GST	Respond to of 164685

Eric -- the logic of going for broke to seize the high ground is not so unusual -- although this is a bit extreme. Honda in the 1950s for example built a plant capable of churning out 50,000 bikes a month when they had a market for 3,000. There were fifty competitors when they did this and only ten a couple of years later. It was worth it. They made a fortune. The question for AMZN is are they seizing the high ground or burning a king's ransom to occupy a swamp? My feeling is this is a smelly dog with fleas in a swamp. <g>

To: Eric Wells who wrote (68668)	7/21/1999 10:51:00 PM
From: Electric	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164685

Eric, Amazon supporters continually state that the foregoing of profits in the short term in order to expand business is a sound approach. Keep in mind though that Amazon has been adhering to this approach for four years. Keep in mind that this is a new medium. You speak of the company adhering to this approacg for 4 years, were you on the internet 4 years ago? I know I consider myself an internet dino and I have been on the net for 2.5. I think you are exaggerating a bit. They may have been in business 4 years but keep things in perspective. I also do not consider myself a cheerleader of AMZN, in fact the two times the stock went from 200 to 90 I about threw up... I ought to have sold and rebought, that was more technical stupidity. This company will be around in the end.. I cannot say that for too many other internet companies. I have a degree in accounting and there were some interesting things that I found in their income statement: biz.yahoo.com Cost of Sales stayed constant with prior year (within .05%). they spent more in marketing than last year (about 5% more), spent more in product development ( 3% more ) and the most well spent increase was in mergers/acquisitions.. 3x more ( 16 % versus 4.6%)... My point is when businesses fail it is usually when their margins are dropping.. If AMZN had no mergers and flat marketing expenses in relation to Gross Revenues then things would look much more traditional and closer to the numbers that many want to see.. Me? I want to see more mergers when prudent and more increases in Gross Revenues (2.71 X more revenue versus year ago revenues) Anyone that looks at .51 or .81 or whatever the number and does not look at what the company is spending it on, and does not look at margins ought not to be buying stocks, they ought to be buying value based mutual funds... All numbers were based on a percentage of Gross Revenues..