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: A.L. Reagan who wrote (102206)	4/26/2000 9:01:00 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Increased fuel costs, from shipping, also hurt, no doubt. UPS claims they've passed on 7% + increases to customers to cover their rising fuel costs. No small potatos to amzn, who ships everything. B&M do not have this expense.

To: A.L. Reagan who wrote (102206)	4/26/2000 9:41:00 PM
From: Jay Fisk	Respond to of 164684

Excellent read on the smoke n' mirrors, here's a similar POV from RB: AMZN only profitable dept is their spin machine... Unlike most participants here, I have dealt with Amazon for almost a year, including trips to Seattle. For obvious reasons I can't talk about what I have learned "inside", but I am free to voice my personal opinion about facts freely available in published reports - so here it is: If I were a long term investor, I would not buy this stock today even at $5. It is my personal opinion they are heading for a crash; it just will take a few more years because of their size and clever financing. Or have you perhaps overlooked their recent convertible bond offering to be paid for with new stock instead of money [yep, massive dilution]? They sold it in Europe only, perhaps to evade the US investors "radar". Books and music "divisions" profitable? Profitable my foot. The way I see it, they just move the hard-to-trace expenses (marketing, advertising, etc) from the balance sheet of books and music into the balances of new departments (where people expect massive loss, justified by being "new"), and that way they show sudden "profitability". Where I come from, people used to call it "cooking the books". If their music business is to be profitable, how come CDNow, whose orders are shipped EXACTLY by the same back-office vendors (just read the annual reports!) is heading for bankruptcy? Amazonians have no magic wand to make money where others are losing pants. They just have much better spinmeisters, and more "buckets" to spill the losses over to. Simple and effective. Next: Anyone noticed how is Bezos's business plan morphing yet again? First it was "be the biggest book store". Fine, they have achieved that - but made no money. Then it was "add music, tool, toys..." - fine, they achieved that - but made no money. Then it was "be another Ebay". Result: They made no money. Now it is "let others exploit our customers and charge them for" [= the Drugstore.com deal]. Result: No money. Lastly: Since 1994 their sales are growing like mushrooms, but their losses are growing exponentially to sales. Under such scenario, it is a mathematical impossibility to ever make profit; two lines widening the distance from each other can never cross (ask any third-grader). All of the above is just my personal opinion, and of course I can be wrong and AMZN may live and prosper. Then again, if you had bought the famous tulips at their heyday a few hundred years ago, you'd be STILL under water today. How's that for long-term investing?