SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (95147)2/28/2000 6:36:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph  Respond to of 164687
 
thestreet.com

Raising Doubts About the
Profitability of Amazon's Book
Business
By Herb Greenberg
Senior Columnist
2/4/00 6:30 AM ET

So, Amazon.com (AMZN:Nasdaq -
news) says its book business is
profitable.

Oh, yeah?

The company's fourth-quarter earnings release was beautifully
choreographed, fabulously danced and wonderfully received. (At
least so it seemed based on the 21% rise in Amazon's stock
Thursday.) "They said what the Street wanted to hear," reasoned
PaineWebber analyst Sara Farley, in a report that reiterated her
neutral rating on the stock.

And what the Street wanted to hear was the word profit.

Just one question: How does Amazon define profit? Jim Chanos
of Kynikos Associates in New York, one of the country's
largest short-selling funds, did the math and came away with a
loss for the book business -- not a profit. (Chanos' fund is short
Amazon.) He got there by subtracting his estimates of cost of
sales and Amazon's fulfillment costs. He then deducted estimated
marketing and sales expenses as well as general and
administrative expenses.

When Chanos ran his calculation
(along with his estimates) by
analysts who are friendly to
Amazon, each gave him slightly
different numbers on the cost of
sales, fulfillment costs and marketing and sales costs --
differences that didn't really affect his bottom line: After general
and administrative costs, Amazon still didn't make any money.

"But," the analysts argue (and I'm extrapolating here, based on
what Chanos told me), "Amazon is telling us their definition of
profit is before general and administrative costs." (The analysts
are calling it "contributed profit." Contributed profit? That's a new
one!)

General and administrative costs are considered normal expenses
for every business, which is why Chanos included them. "I guess
we have a philosophical difference," Chanos says. He adds: "I
think the company is being misleading, at best, saying books are
profitable, because using my numbers they're only profitable on a
gross-profit basis." (By gross profit Chanos means profitable
before sales and marketing as well as general and administrative
costs.)

But that's only one reason Chanos and others are questioning the
quality of the story being spun by Amazon. (Go see my buddy
Joey Bousquin's analysis on TheStreet.com's news pages for
yet another take on the company's numbers.)

Not only is the company running low on cash, but despite writing
off $39 million in inventory, the amount of inventory on hand still
rose by around $100 million from the third quarter. (Shouldn't that
have been going down?) And payables, the amount owed to
suppliers, leaped by 95% from the third quarter. (Stretching out
payables is one way to conserve cash. Usually, for a retailer,
payables rise in the third quarter, as inventories are bought for
Christmas, then fall during the fourth quarter.)

But wait -- there's more: Click here for the conclusion of
today's column.



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (95147)2/28/2000 6:38:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph  Respond to of 164687
 
thestreet.com

in the weeks and days prior to the earnings release, as if to prime
Wall Street, Amazon struck a series of agreements with
drugstore.com (DSCM:Nasdaq - news) and five Internet
companies that Salomon Smith Barney analyst Holly Becker
describes as being in their "very early stages, even by Internet
standards."

The deals call for Amazon to invest in these companies, most of
which have little in the way of revenue, in exchange for multiyear
payments from these upstarts of more than $100 million per year.
Another way of looking at it, some analysts believe, is that
Amazon is taking money from its balance sheet and giving it to
these companies, which in turn will give it back starting this year
to Amazon in the form of revenue. (Pretty cozy, eh?)

Amazon, in turn, boasts that its
margins are getting better, and
no wonder: Because it can count
on more than $100 million per
year, over the next few years, in
income that drops directly to the bottom line.

"My concern is not that it's high-margin business," Chanos says,
"but that Amazon.com is becoming the Boston Chicken
(BOSTQ:OTC BB - news) of the Internet, because they're funding
companies with cash or stock and turning around and having
those companies pay them fees in cash." By contrast, Boston
Chicken was funding unprofitable units in return for royalties in the
form of IOUs, with no cash changing hands.

Well, isn't that what America Online (AOL:NYSE - news) did in
its early days? (That's the story being spun by the bulls.) AOL, in
many cases, was doing biz with more established companies and
it didn't have warehouses and it was minting money from
everybody who signed onto its service.

So, what's Amazon really up to? Well, it's in dire need of cash.
Based on cash burn and its current negative working capital,
some skeptics believe Amazon is only a couple of quarters, tops,
from running out. As a result, Amazon is believed to be dressing
itself up (by using such words as "profit") for a speedy sale of
additional stock, and analysts -- in hopes of getting cut in on the
deal -- are towing the company line.

"Some sell-side analysts are selling their credibility down the river
to see one more investment banking fee," Chanos says. Word in
some investment circles is that a deal could come within six
weeks -- assuming that Amazon's stock remains robust.

That depends on whose definition of profit investors want to go
by.

Some analysts have been telling clients that as long as Amazon
can continue to raise cash, it'll be fine. Of course, that's what they
said about Boston Chicken, too, and that's one clucker that came
home to roost.

P.S. Despite the company's claim that its losses will narrow,
several analysts, while upgrading the stock to a "buy," projected
wider losses for the year, thanks to ballooning overhead. (Go
figger!)

P.P.S: Several analysts who like Amazon mentioned in their
post-earnings reports that Amazon's financial model is starting to
take on the attributes of a traditional retailer. Well, Amazon
currently trades at about 18 times sales. That compares with
1.7-times sales for Wal-Mart (WMT:NYSE - news) and 0.9-times
sales for Best Buy (BBY:NYSE - news) -- two other highly
regarded, fast-growing retailers.

P.P.P.S: None of this says that Amazon isn't a fine place to shop.
"It's a great company if you're a consumer," PaineWebber's Farley
says. "But it's important to distinguish between value to a
consumer and value to an investor."

Some investors, unfortunately, always confuse the two.

Amazon officials couldn't be reached for comment.



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (95147)2/28/2000 6:39:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph  Respond to of 164687
 
William,

How many stories would you like breaking apart Amazon's claim their book business was profitable and finding it was not?



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (95147)2/28/2000 6:45:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph  Respond to of 164687
 
Amazon Rallies but Numbers Still Look All
Wet to Some
By Joe Bousquin
Staff Reporter
2/3/00 4:58 PM ET

From a numbers-crunching standpoint, Thursday's reaction to
Amazon.com's (AMZN:Nasdaq - news) quarterly report is akin to
the mental state of your poor Uncle Edward. In a word, it's a little
nuts.

Investors who sent the stock up 21% to 84 3/16 Thursday weren't
focusing on Amazon's wider-than-expected loss, reported
Wednesday evening. Instead, the company hung its hats on
stronger-than-expected revenue growth and a pledge from
management to focus on profits.

But if you resist the Fox Mulder-like desire to believe, the harsh
reality is that Amazon's numbers suggest reaching profitability
won't be easy. The report underscored shortcomings in inventory
management and profit margins that promise to cause further
problems for the Seattle bookseller, whose stock mostly flatlined
after a hot start in 1999 and significantly underperformed its
highflying Nasdaq brethren as investors began to worry about the
bottom line.

Living in the Past

Prudential Securities analyst Mark Rowen put Amazon's
numbers into perspective Thursday in his morning note. Pointing to
the fact that Amazon actually paid more for goods and fulfillment
than it charged its customers, he compared it with a retailer of the
past.

"Over the years, any number of retailers have tried this strategy,
only to find it is extremely difficult to increase revenues in order to
cover costs," Rowen wrote. "Remember Crazy Eddie? ... We do
not believe [Amazon] deserves credit for giving merchandise away
below cost in order to drive revenue growth."

Even Wall Street, in its infinite ability to forgive this company, has
ultimately been unconvinced by its promises. After two big run-ups
in 1999 and Thursday's rise, the stock is still trading, on a
split-adjusted basis, at the same place it was last January. Not
exactly a great return for a company with 168% revenue growth
during that time, over a period in which the Nasdaq returned some
80%. Now, Amazon's fundamentals may give the Street reason to
go south on it again.

A New Day Yesterday

For one, the company's gross-profit margins -- a factor that has
increasingly caught the imagination of Wall Street since the
beginning of the year -- are experiencing a bout of shrinkage that
would make George Costanza cringe. They plunged to 13% in the
fourth quarter from 19.8% in the previous one, even as revenue
soared. Those numbers put Amazon in the same league with
struggling e-tailer Cyberian Outpost.com (COOL:Nasdaq -
news), which reported gross-profit margins of 11.7% for its most
recent quarter. While Outpost's price-to-sales ratio comes in at a
squat 1.5, Amazon's towers at 17.7.

So how did a company that took in 90% more revenue in the fourth
quarter manage to bring home a third less in gross profits? For one,
Amazon stumbled in a category that has challenged retailers for
ages: inventory management.

The online retailer ended 1999 with $221 million in inventory -- or
almost a third of its $676 million in fourth-quarter revenue -- and
had to take a charge of $39 million to write that inventory down. In
other words, nearly a fifth of the merchandise in its warehouses is
worthless. Clearly, a Wal-Mart (WMT:NYSE - news), Amazon is
not. As Rowen puts it, Amazon's inventory management was
"horrendous."

The company disagrees. In its conference call with analysts
Wednesday night, Amazon CFO Warren Jenson floated the idea of
viewing the inventory charge as a "customer acquisition cost." With
the charge, Warren said, Amazon's per-customer acquisition cost
was $29. While he said that's "still better than any e-tailer we're
aware of," both eBay (EBAY:Nasdaq - news) and priceline.com
(PCLN:Nasdaq - news) reported numbers in the low teens. Jenson
added that without the inventory charge, gross margins would
have been 18.8%.

This Is Not Love

Amazon also said that its profit margins should approach 20% in
the first quarter of 2000. The raft of deals that Amazon has made
with smaller e-tailers such as drugstore.com and Living.com --
it inked a deal with Greg Manning Auctions (GMAI:Nasdaq -
news) Thursday morning -- will give Amazon a much-needed
infusion of cash. (The company's cash levels dropped from $1.4
billion in March 1999 to $700 million in the latest quarter.)

But Sara Farley, an analyst with PaineWebber who has a neutral
rating on the stock and whose firm has not done any underwriting
for Amazon, cautions investors to consider the downside of those
deals as well. After all, one money-losing dot-com investing in
another doesn't exactly beat a path toward profitability.

"Investors should be looking at Amazon's share of losses in those
partners," Farley says. "Because those equity investments are
being made, in part, to generate revenues and to work toward
funding Amazon's own operations."

Farley estimates that Amazon's share of its partners' losses was
$40 million in the fourth quarter. If those losses had been
considered in its earnings, the e-tailer would have lost 12 cents
more per share, for a total of 67 cents, vs. the 48-cent loss
analysts were expecting. For the whole year, it would have lost 24
cents more per share, or 20% more than the $1.19 loss it reported.

Alas, with Amazon finishing Thursday's regular session up 14 3/4,
all this numbers stuff obviously doesn't matter. At least, that is, until
investors once again decide it does.



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (95147)2/28/2000 6:53:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph  Respond to of 164687
 
William,

I am not putting $2.50 on my QPass for a story I already posted here:

Here is the link and buy if you wish:

archives.nytimes.com^d+0+amazon



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (95147)2/28/2000 6:59:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph  Respond to of 164687
 
These are $2.95 each. Just pick anyone...

nrstg1p.djnr.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (95147)2/28/2000 7:43:00 PM
From: Libbyt  Respond to of 164687
 
PHCM news...

Just FYI...for those who hold PHCM. I saw this posted on another message board.

Phone.com News for Monday, February 28 2000

1) Agreement between Intel and Phone.com to Improve Performance, Security of Internet-Enabled Mobile Phones
Read Press Release:
phone.com

2) Phone.com Introduces the First WAP-Based System for Over-the-Air Provisioning of Wireless Handsets
Read Press Release:
phone.com

3) Phone.com Announces New E-Commerce and Automated Provisioning Features for UP.Link Server Release 4.2
Read Press Release:
phone.com

Libbyt



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (95147)2/28/2000 11:19:00 PM
From: Sam Sara  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164687
 
Article on HLTH:

From MS Investor:

For years, Internet entrepreneurs have been drooling over the $1.3 trillion U.S. health-care industry and the 30 billion transactions a year that keep it humming. But so far, they've barely nibbled at the potentially enormous feast. At a time when school kids trade Pokā€šmon cards over the Internet, most drug prescriptions are still filled the old-fashioned way, with sick people carrying little pieces of paper adorned with illegible scrawls from their doctor's offices to drugstores. In fact, 95% of all medical records are still kept on paper, according to Raymond James analyst James Kumpel.

Over the next couple of years, Internet-based systems should at last begin to take over a significant piece of the action. The company that analysts expect to handle the lion's share of online medical transactions, at least in the early years of the so-called e-health revolution, is Healtheon/WebMD (HLTH).

After a recent, dizzying succession of mergers and acquisitions, the Atlanta-based company now has all of the pieces it needs to build an end-to-end network linking patients, doctors, hospitals, pharmacies and insurance companies. "The company touches each constituency in the health-care sector to an extent unrivaled by any competitor, in our view," wrote Robertson Stephens analyst Sheryl Skolnick in a Feb. 14 report on Healtheon/WebMD's latest acquisitions. "It's just a matter of putting them together," adds Kumpel, who is optimistic the company will succeed in integrating its acquisitions into an all-purpose medical service on the Internet. Healtheon, which was recently trading in the $50s, is Kumpel's top pick in the e-health group, with a price target that he recently boosted to $100.

Several companies in the hunt
A number of other companies have sprung up in recent years with Internet-based medical-record handling systems that are undeniably superior to the paper-based procedures they would like to replace. Whether they will be adopted or not, and if so, when, are other questions.

Hillsboro, Ore.-based MedicaLogic (MDLI) is the leader in putting patients' medical records online. Data Critical (DCCA) is the leading independent vendor of wireless patient-monitoring systems. Allscripts (MDRX) sells a wireless prescription-issuing device that a doctor can use to select a drug, ascertain that the patient's insurance plan covers it and transmit a prescription to a pharmacy, all in the same 20-30 seconds it would take to grab a pen and scrawl a prescription on a piece of paper.

These and other Internet-based transaction-processing systems are just what the health-care industry needs these days. A transaction can be processed much more cheaply online than on paper, a big plus at a time of unrelenting pressure to cut health-care costs. Online medical records offer the prospect of easier access for patients, something that could eventually be mandated by Congress. Prescriptions and other records transmitted over the Internet are also less prone to error than notes scrawled by hand, and could therefore help reduce the 120,000 deaths said to occur each year from medical errors.

The sheer size and fragmented nature of the health-care industry, along with the inertia of many doctors, has slowed the spread of online medical transactions. But that is about to change, analysts say.

"We are just now at the beginning of a new wave of investment in Internet medical records and expect the market to grow very rapidly," asserted U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray's Daren C. Marhula in a recent report. "We believe the field of Internet medical records will grow rapidly over the next three to five years, presenting a compelling investment area."

Marhula's top three e-health picks are MedicaLogic, Data Critical and Cerner (CERN), a leading vendor of clinical software and owner of 20% of CareInsite (CARI), an online medical-network company that Healtheon/WebMD now plans to acquire.

Key software already in use, but ?
MedicaLogic's Logician network software is arguably the most revolutionary e-health product now on the market. It allows doctors to gain access over the Internet to patients' medical records. The system was recently selected for use in the ambulatory clinics run by three large hospitals in New York that account for nearly 25% of the health-care business in the New York City-area alone, the company said.



MedicaLogic's Logician network software is arguably the most revolutionary e-health product now on the market.

"Use of the Logician product represents an important step toward integrating outpatient as well as in-patient information across the entire integrated delivery system," said Curt Cole, director of information services for the Cornell Physician Organization of Weill Medical College. "This will allow us to provide even higher-quality care, reduce costs and guarantee regulatory compliance."

That sounds promising. But don't expect to see Logician turning up in a doctor's office near you anytime soon, analysts caution.

"Electronic medical records are still a ways away," Kumpel says. "Until you can get broad adoption though entire regions, they're effectively redundant," he adds, explaining that most physicians already use physician practice-management software. When doctor's offices start creating parallel, electronic databases accessible over the Internet, questions will arise about possible discrepancies between the two, Kumpel says. Concerns about hackers invading medical files will also have to be laid to rest before such records start to move online en masse.

Skolnick is somewhat more upbeat about MedicaLogic's near-term prospects. "We are concerned about the slow ramp-up," she wrote in a Feb. 22 report. The company's product now reaches 50% more health-care clinicians than a year ago, though the number of users still totals just 7,800. But the company's Feb. 22 announcement of a $1.2 billion, three-way deal to merge with Medscape (MSCP), a consumer health-information site, and acquire privately held Total eMed, a Web-based transcription service, will get MedicaLogic's foot in the door of many more doctors' offices. Medscape is used by 250,000 physicians, noted Skolnick. "Cross-selling opportunities could be significant if MDLI is able to leverage this audience," she said.

In the wake of its recent spate of acquisitions, Healtheon/WebMD is much closer to reaching critical mass for wide-scale use of online medical transactions. The original parent of the company, Healtheon, was co-founded in 1996 by Jim Clark, who earlier in his career launched Silicon Graphics (SGI) and Netscape. In its early days, Healtheon provided online medical data to physicians and hospitals and by 1998 was taking in just $10 million per quarter in revenue.


The sheer size and fragmented nature of the health-care industry, along with the technophobic inertia of many doctors, has slowed the spread of online medical transactions.
Mergers, Murdoch sparked Healtheon
Things began to change rapidly in late 1999. In November, Healtheon merged with the leading consumer health site, WebMD, and two doctors' software companies, MEDE America and Medcast. The combined entity offered some service or other to 280,000 physicians, 11,000 dentists, 1,100 hospitals, 46,000 pharmacies and several million consumers. A few weeks later, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. (NWS) announced a $1 billion deal to acquire 10.8% of Healtheon/WebMD and market the company through its international media properties.

So far this year, Healtheon/WebMD has agreed to pay $2.5 billion for Quintiles Transnational's (QTRN) health insurance claims-processing business and $300 million for Kinetra, a joint venture of Electronic Data Systems (EDS) and drugmaker Eli Lilly (LLY). The company also announced a partnership with IDX Systems (IDXC), whose computer software is used by about a quarter of U.S. doctors. And in the biggest deal yet, the company announced its intention to buy Medical Manager (MMGR) and its CareInsite unit. That combination will bundle Healtheon's Internet health-care information business with Medical Manager's physician practice management system, used by 120,000 doctors, and CareInsite's online network linking doctors and pharmacies. With the acquisition of Medical Manager, Healtheon/WebMD will reach 400,000 physicians, 4,000 hospitals, 50,000 pharmacies and 900 payers, and will handle 2 billion transactions.

Transferring all of those transactions to the Internet is "not going to be an easy step," cautions Marhula.


more...
"They've done a number of smart transactions for which they paid a fortune in stock. But I do think it gives them a competitive advantage versus anyone else in the space right now," adds Chris Russ, an analyst at First Union Securities, who rates the stock a "buy" with a $60 price target. "They are by far the leading company in the B2B-connectivity side in health care."

The stock was recently trading at just below $60, which is about 30 times projected revenue of just under $300 million this year. But that figure doesn't include revenue from Medical Manager, which will be about $300 million this year, Kumpel says.

With that deal taken into account, "Healtheon will have an incredible ramp up in their revenue base in 2001," Kumpel says. "It's probably going to go up to about $1 billion or so."

To pay for all the acquisitions, the company will write off about $1 billion in goodwill each quarter for the next three years, Kumpel added. But he expects the company to turn cash flow positive by early 2003 and to generate earnings by the end of that year. That prospect is promising enough that the stock should nearly double from its current levels to $100 within the next 12 months, Kumpel believes.

moneycentral.msn.com



To: Bill Harmond who wrote (95147)2/29/2000 6:02:00 PM
From: Eric S.  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164687
 
William,

Thanks for the call on MU. I must say, this time I did not quite follow you, and held to my MU leap calls.

Eric