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: Glenn D. Rudolph who wrote (114789)	1/9/2001 6:05:04 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 164684

>>Anyone know why?<< i do. nice analysis. amazon was doa. a mail order store with a web site. big whoop.

To: Glenn D. Rudolph who wrote (114789)	1/9/2001 7:57:17 PM
From: The Reaper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>Jenson knows the cash and marketable securities but not the short term accounts payable. Hmmm..seems to me accounts payable which will need to be paid by January 10, 2001 is a very important number in making a determination of a firms financial condition. < Glenn, this is right on. The ONLY place an increase of cash could have come from is from the ballooning of accounts payable. Lets look at the facts as we know them. 1) Inventory was up slightly from the previous quarter, so no cash generated there. 2) There were no new borrowings or equity floats during the quarter. 3) If there were any investment portfolio gains during the quarter, these guys are money management geniuses. 4) There was no net income during the quarter, duh! 5) The only source of cash at the end of the quarter must have come from the float of Christmas sales. How much do you think payables went up during Christmas? The balance sheet at the end of Q1 2001 could conceivably show a cash decrease of over $700 million. That is what I call a burn rate. kirby