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 (135461)	12/8/2001 2:18:30 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Glenn, I'm confused. If AOL competes with Amzn why would AOL invest $100 million in Amazon.com? Curious minds want to know. James, I have to preference this with my opinion. In my opinion, Amazon was not able to get merchndise from many vendors for the fall due to their lack of working capital. Not lack of cash on hand. There was no simple solution for tapping the equity markets so possibly a VC fund with a lot of power voted for AOL to provide Amazon with $100 million. Aol had no need for this move and in my opinion, that was like taking $100 million from the AOL investor. It also appears AOL will have to do this again this winter or some other firm with which this VC firm has some control. Amazon has slowed marketing and growth significantly. They are down to a burn rate of $100 million in working capital per quarter. One last thought to comtemplate then I have to get back to work. The leases on the DCs are not fixed for 10 years. They escalate between 8 to 10% per year depending up which DC. Amazon's costs are far from fixed. I assume Amazon planned on doing much better from a profit point of view by now.

To: H James Morris who wrote (135461)	12/8/2001 2:18:30 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

Glenn, I'm confused. If AOL competes with Amzn why would AOL invest $100 million in Amazon.com? Curious minds want to know. James, I have to preference this with my opinion. In my opinion, Amazon was not able to get merchndise from many vendors for the fall due to their lack of working capital. Not lack of cash on hand. There was no simple solution for tapping the equity markets so possibly a VC fund with a lot of power voted for AOL to provide Amazon with $100 million. Aol had no need for this move and in my opinion, that was like taking $100 million from the AOL investor. It also appears AOL will have to do this again this winter or some other firm with which this VC firm has some control. Amazon has slowed marketing and growth significantly. They are down to a burn rate of $100 million in working capital per quarter. One last thought to comtemplate then I have to get back to work. The leases on the DCs are not fixed for 10 years. They escalate between 8 to 10% per year depending up which DC. Amazon's costs are far from fixed. I assume Amazon planned on doing much better from a profit point of view by now.

To: H James Morris who wrote (135461)	12/8/2001 2:18:30 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

Glenn, I'm confused. If AOL competes with Amzn why would AOL invest $100 million in Amazon.com? Curious minds want to know. James, I have to preference this with my opinion. In my opinion, Amazon was not able to get merchndise from many vendors for the fall due to their lack of working capital. Not lack of cash on hand. There was no simple solution for tapping the equity markets so possibly a VC fund with a lot of power voted for AOL to provide Amazon with $100 million. Aol had no need for this move and in my opinion, that was like taking $100 million from the AOL investor. It also appears AOL will have to do this again this winter or some other firm with which this VC firm has some control. Amazon has slowed marketing and growth significantly. They are down to a burn rate of $100 million in working capital per quarter. One last thought to comtemplate then I have to get back to work. The leases on the DCs are not fixed for 10 years. They escalate between 8 to 10% per year depending up which DC. Amazon's costs are far from fixed. I assume Amazon planned on doing much better from a profit point of view by now.

To: H James Morris who wrote (135461)	12/8/2001 2:18:30 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

Glenn, I'm confused. If AOL competes with Amzn why would AOL invest $100 million in Amazon.com? Curious minds want to know. James, I have to preference this with my opinion. In my opinion, Amazon was not able to get merchndise from many vendors for the fall due to their lack of working capital. Not lack of cash on hand. There was no simple solution for tapping the equity markets so possibly a VC fund with a lot of power voted for AOL to provide Amazon with $100 million. Aol had no need for this move and in my opinion, that was like taking $100 million from the AOL investor. It also appears AOL will have to do this again this winter or some other firm with which this VC firm has some control. Amazon has slowed marketing and growth significantly. They are down to a burn rate of $100 million in working capital per quarter. One last thought to comtemplate then I have to get back to work. The leases on the DCs are not fixed for 10 years. They escalate between 8 to 10% per year depending up which DC. Amazon's costs are far from fixed. I assume Amazon planned on doing much better from a profit point of view by now.