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: i-node who wrote (89311)	1/1/2000 8:46:00 PM
From: 10K a day	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

David...The only meaningful number to me is Insider Sales as percentage of Revenues. Says' it all for me. ;-)

To: i-node who wrote (89311)	1/1/2000 10:47:00 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

<<These companies, whether B&M or .com, operate on very slim margins, which is okay when sales are in the billions.>> David, "very slim margins" are not what investors have priced into this hyper-inflated stock. Based on the absurd mkt cap of this stock, it is clear to me that investors expect amzn to be the 800-lb gorrilla of internet retailing, with the power to raise prices at will. Anything that goes wrong with that will not be good for the stock. Moreover, the lack of progress for the stock in recent months, indeed the weekness of late, imho indicates that the daytraders and short-term traders who dominate the trading in this stock are getting bored with it and moving on. Victor

To: i-node who wrote (89311)	1/1/2000 11:07:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

Respectfully, you are entirely incorrect. I am intimately familiar with corporate reporting practices (as a practicing CPA), and read the 10K prior to purchasing my shares. AMZN has correctly reported the "fulfillment" costs -- they do NOT represent "cost of sales" and would be inappropriately reported as such. Agreed! While this category "marketing", which includes "fulfillment", currently exceeds the margin being generated, you are [incorrectly] assuming that these costs are a fixed percentage of sales, regardless of what level of sales is attained. This is, of course, sheer and utter nonsense. I never assumed they are a fixed percentage but they are more variable than you believe in retailing. The 10K doesn't provide sufficient information to make this determination, as it doesn't break down fulfillment costs into expendables and depreciation, nor does it break out other costs, which are undoubtedly substantial. Perhaps that contributed to your error. Agreed about the lack of information but it may also be contributing to an error on yourside. This is simply incorrect. Does the term "economies of scale" not mean ANYTHING to you? It sure does and I do not see it coming into play here as well as has been hoped. Look, I suspect we can disagree about this from now on. Ultimately, we'll have to see who was right a year from now. This is a plan although two years from now is better. I do apologize for assuming you had not read the footnotes to the 10Ks and 10Qs. That was wrong on my part to make that assumption. The best of luck to you. Glenn