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: Bill Harmond who wrote (93454)	2/13/2000 3:05:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

What Amazon is trading for those cheap equity stakes is free customer acquisition cost. It's similar to what Wal-Mart did in real estate. William, Please. Amazon wants to show the street that they will obtain revenue from other firms over time. This was to boost the stock pruce and that is all. The firms in which Amazon have taken a stake, cannot pay the fees to Amazon. They may as well be written off now as bad debts. You are still hung up on Amazon as a viable business model when in fact, it has failed miserably. I am going to use the "c" word against you <VBG>

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (93454)	2/13/2000 3:08:00 PM
From: 10K a day	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

William... Interesting Points....:0)...I would argue that as time passes... The Value of Good Valid Customers will diminish... As more and more people become comfortable with web purchases....

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (93454)	2/13/2000 7:50:00 PM
From: Eric Wells	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

What Amazon is trading for those cheap equity stakes is free customer acquisition cost. William - thanks for your reply. There are a few things that concern me about these recent deals announced by Amazon: 1. Drugstore.com: Before the recent announcement, Amazon already owned 46% of Drugstore.com, and had already established a "strategic alliance" (see press release dated 2/24/99 on Amazon's site). One has to wonder if this most recent strategic alliance represents nothing more than a transfer of $105 million from Drugstore.com's balance sheet to Amazon's balance sheet. 2. I find the Greenlight deal questionable in terms of its strategic importance. Greenlight just launched their site this past November, and currently offers cars in only six metropolitan areas in the US. Their sales, if any, are small. And there is a lot of competition - there are nearly ten high-profile car sites that specialize in selling new cars that are up and running at the moment. In fact, I would not even consider Greenlight to be one of the top car sites - in terms of either sales or popularity. So why did Amazon choose Greenlight for an investment? Was it because Greenlight was a KP company - a private KP company that is certain to go public and be able to raise enough cash to pay Amazon the fees committed to? And why did Greenlight strike this deal with Amazon? Does it really represent a strategic fit? Was this deal done in the best interests of Amazon and Greenlight shareholders? I think it comes down to two things: Amazon needs more cash to continue operations, and Amazon needs higher, lower-cost revenues in an effort to achieve profitability in order to restore investor confidence. These recent deals give Amazon both (and the recent bond offering gives Amazon more cash). But these deals tax other KP companies - putting pressure on companies that are not profitable themselves. Yet these other companies are in a better position to raise cash through IPOs or secondary offerings than Amazon is. I think an Amazon secondary would not be met well at the moment. So why not do a Drugstore.com secondary and a Greenlight IPO and funnel some of the proceeds to Amazon? Of course, this can't go on forever - KP companies that are helping to contiue to fund Amazon will have to become profitable, or else they'll have to look for other sources of funding themselves. --Eric