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: H James Morris who wrote (128276)	7/13/2001 5:42:33 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

>>Amazon's slowed growth doesn't mean the company has executed poorly, said Holly Guthrie, an analyst with Janney Montgomery Scott in Philadelphia. The problem, she said, lies in generally overly optimistic projections about Internet commerce.<< excuse me, but isn't projecting forward part of execution? >>"Back when Amazon was going to expand, capital was plentiful, the productivity gains were wonderful, and the Internet was a whole new paradigm. Then the bubble burst," Guthrie said. "Now it's clear retailing is retailing -- you have to operate under the same margins as anyone else, you're competitive against everyone else."<< the one eyed lady finally lifted her eyelid ;-) >>"Amazon is very much working toward becoming healthy," Guthrie said. "It's getting healthy by slowing down growth and spending and adjusting supply to better suit demand, which is far lower than what every dot-com anticipated."<< you mean "amazon has never been better" is UNHEALTHY? ;-) >>She said analysts expect to see "very, very modest profits" in the fourth quarter, as founder Jeff Bezos has promised.<< nope, he promised losses in q4. >>Amazon's net sales have increased rapidly: from $148 million in 1997 to $610 million in 1998, $1.6 billion in 1999 and $2.8 billion in 2000. Pro forma net losses have slowed, from $61 million in 1998 to $352 million in 1999 and $317 million in 2000.<< actually, net losses increased from $61 m to $317 m. remedial math, anyone? ;-)

To: H James Morris who wrote (128276)	7/13/2001 6:09:03 PM
From: Mark Fowler	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

If Exds can manage thru this then it's just a Blip, eom.