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: Oeconomicus who wrote (146061)	8/23/2002 6:24:56 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164685

I mostly posted that because of the "and implies continued rev growth acceleration." comment, and how it pertains to a double dip some are looking for. But wrt Amazon, Didn't they add some new major categories in the last year?), No, not that I know of. Unless you want to count the boutiques (the Harry Potter store, etc.). At this rate of progress, they will never be able to repay their debts. Looking at the 10Q's- jun sep dec 2001 667 639 1115 2002 805 830 est ??? The jun and sep qtr's usually track, with the summer being a little slower. If the dec qtr is typical of almost a double of sep, it will be in the 1.5bb range, 36% more than last year. A lot of "if's" I know but sometimes a trend is all you have to go on. My personal opinion is that amazon is going to have a blowout xmas, I believe retail will be strong and after all this consolidation in e-tail they are going to scoop up a bunch of biz. We shall see. L

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (146061)	8/24/2002 12:39:09 AM
From: 10K a day	Respond to of 164685

why we doing all this number crunching stuff...we just trying to justify what we already done... an exercise in mental gymnastics...when market makers decide to move a price...it's as simple as that...end of story... I don't think anything illegal about gapping a stock up 100 or 200 percent...these guys can do it...they just have to decide to...

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (146061)	8/24/2002 4:57:43 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164685

"Liz, looks like good yr-yr growth (Glenn, is the yr-yr comparison valid? You know, "same store sales" basis. Didn't they add some new major categories in the last year?), but they are still losing money. " Bob, I do not know how to truly compare same store comparisons with Amazon. Almost all their growth in revenue during the last three quarters has come from their overseas operations. I can't think of any real categories they have added that would reflect in this quarter except apparel from Target. I am not sure those sales are occurring as of yet and I suspect the revenue should be booked to Target except for Amazon's small percentage cut. Amazon is still gaining service revenue fees from what I read. That at least has decent margins. There was a lot of talk a bit ago about a change in their agreement with Toys R Us. I am not sure if that was modified. I can't see how cots will decrease with an increase in the cost of shipping which is a major factor to them. I believe waiting for the actually numbers makes sense in that this is fruitless. Just my opinion too.

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (146061)	8/26/2002 1:44:46 PM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164685

Glenn, is the yr-yr comparison valid? You know, "same store sales" basis. Sorry to butt in, but no, it is not valid. Amazon was able to attract a large number of customers last X-mas, since then it has not attracted a single net new customer in the USA. Having said that, last year AMZN saw flat sales compared to the previous quarter. If they indeed attain the $830 revenue estimate just announced that would be an increase of about 4% over the previous quarter which is quite decent. At this rate of progress, they will never be able to repay their debts. That looks pretty much as a given, if you mean out of general revenue. I think Amazon will issue shares and retire the debt sooner or later, at a convenient time when dilution would be minimized....