SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Strategies & Market Trends : AMAZON.COM RIDICULOUSLY OVERVALUED BY ANY MODEL (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Dow Jones Reporter who wrote (84)5/14/1998 12:48:00 PM
From: Candle stick  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 182
 
James Cramer, from "thestreet.com" on AMZN.....

Wrong! Rear Echelon
Revelations: Cramer Asks: Is
Amazon the Next Iomega?

By James J. Cramer
5/13/98 4:05 PM ET

Amazon.com (AMZN:Nasdaq): Faux Internet versus
Internet. Which one is it? Of all the intellectual
exercises out there, the true worth of Amazon.com
intrigues me the most because I am not sure
whether Amazon.com is the next Iomega (IOM:NYSE)
or the next unassailable franchise.

First, definitions. When I say next Iomega or son
of Iomega, what I am talking about is the
great-product-as-bad-stock formulation. Two years
ago Iomega had an unbelievable product and a proud
group of online sponsors. It also had vicious
detractors who knew that Iomega made a commodity
product that one day would have its margins cut to
shreds.

For a while there the bulls had it made in Iomega.
They had the shorts crumpling, the longs
tantalized and the bankers hooting and hollering.
This stock went up everyday as shorts scrambled to
find stock to be lent out and longs bid the stock
up aggressively. My hat is off to anybody who
stayed the course and got out at the top.

Now we have that same dichotomy in Amazon. Anybody
who has been to Amazon's site knows it inspires
immediate loyalty. I love it. I can't tell you how
many times I have bought the suggested books, just
put them right into the cart. I read the reviews.
I order. I get. For someone pressed for time, as I
always am, you just can't beat Amazon.

But we know, and it has not been disputed, that
Amazon loses 20 cents on every book it sells. We
know the company just borrowed a huge amount of
money to finance expansion. We know that what
Amazon offers is a commodity that could be
replicated (read stolen) by Borders (BGP:NYSE) or
Barnes & Noble (BKS:NYSE), old hands at this book
selling stuff. We know that software will be
invented that will price out books and send you to
the lowest price available on the Net.

To me that combination makes Amazon sound an awful
lot like Iomega. Unless Amazon wins some sort of
exclusive book seller contract or manages to buy
Borders or Barnes & Noble with its own inflated
stock, I don't see how this stock doesn't unravel
at some point.


But would I short it? Let me give you a couple of
quick tips on shorting. I never ever short a
company that could be on the cover of Business
Week as one of the best-run companies in America,
and Amazon is incredibly well-run. I also don't
short stocks that are hard to borrow, meaning that
you can't find stock that you need to do a short
sale (see archives on why this is important).

So in this case, my conclusion: I am an
intellectual coward. I know I should be short this
stock based on its business model. But I can't
based on its branding and its momentum.

Nevertheless, if it is an Iomega, we should see
its true colors rather soon, as the life cycle of
these kinds of stocks is about 18 months from
bottom to short squeeze to legitimate top. In
other words, much longer than the bears ever
believed possible -- but it's not ever long enough
for all the greedy bulls to get out.

*****



To: Dow Jones Reporter who wrote (84)5/14/1998 6:54:00 PM
From: Candle stick  Respond to of 182
 
WIRED NEWS, STORY TODAY, "USING BOTS TO BUY BOOKS':

wired.com

Using Bots to Buy Books
by Jennifer Sullivan

5:04am 14.May.98.PDT
All the marketing dollars in the world might not
help the Amazon.coms of the Web, or even the
Barnes & Nobles of realspace, if so-called
"shopping bots" hit the big time.

Available through sites like Yahoo's and Excite's
shopping guides, shopbots search a multitude of
online retailers to find the lowest price on a
specified product. They are often derided as
"bottom fishers," but bot-backers are betting that
online shoppers are primarily interested in one
thing: the very lowest price available anywhere.

Though shopbots abound for computer products,
clothing, and flowers, they may be best suited for
the online world of books. Muenchhoff & Janz
GmbH's Acses Web site( acses.com ) is picking up steam after
signing its 25th book retailer in February. Acses
links into the databases of all its book sites,
searching for your title. It returns the top
selections, ranked by price, along with shipping
and handling information, while linking to the
respective Web sites.

Perhaps the biggest surprise is that it's not always
the well-knowns, like Amazon.com or B&N, that
have the best deals. Frequently, it's the little guys
like All Direct Books, that can get you David
Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest for only US$15.16.

"Very often, lesser-known stores are cheaper, e.g.
All Direct Books," said Christoph Janz, who
co-founded Acses in 1993 with Christopher
Muenchhoff, in an email interview. "The long-term
consequences of comparison-shopping agents ...
for the online retailers are not rosy."

And boy, are the little guys excited. "It's the best
way for us to compete," said Michael Kelm of
alt.bookstore, which is also featured on Acses.
"People will choose us because of the price. We
don't have the millions of dollars to spend on
content that the Amazons do. This is a really good
equalizer."

The Acses service is not perfect -- shipping time
and pricing can be a bit off, and certain links return
messages like this: "Booksite Books is not yet
cooperating with Acses." But Acses is indicative
of an online business model that might soon take
hold. And shopbots are something the analysts at
Jupiter Communications love to talk about.

A Jupiter study released Friday found that 77
percent of buyers go online with a specific
purchase in mind, and 79 percent of them visit
several sites before making a purchase. Thus,
Jupiter trumpeted shopbots as the wave of the
future, because they greatly cut down on time
spent comparison shopping.


Plus, shopbot services are free to consumers, but
still allow for a profitable revenue stream.

"There are two revenue sources," said Ken
Cassar, an analyst at Jupiter Communications.
"One is through [bookseller] participation fees
[that] some of them do not charge." Cassar said
most, if not all, shopbot sites also receive
additional commission fees for sales generated
through their site.

But Acses has one problem. "They can't offer
merchants the masses of traffic or the quantity
that the portals can offer," he said. "It's harder to
say no to traffic coming from a portal."

Indeed, Janz said the site has not garnered much
attention yet. But it is one of the few book
shopbots that hosts more than a handful of
sellers. Some portals, like Yahoo's ShopGuide,
only host a few big book players, while others only
let you search on one bookseller -- Lycos
searches Barnesandnoble.com and Excite
searches Amazon.com. Most analysts said that
this is because of their exclusive deals in the
bookselling category.

Excite, Yahoo, and Amazon could not be reached
for comment.

But so far, the big booksellers like Amazon.com
and Barnes & Noble have allowed themselves to
be included in Acses, Yahoo, and other little bots
like Best Book Buys and Shopfind, suggesting
that they are not overly concerned about diluting
their brands.

Indeed, there is the potential that all the brand
awareness that Amazon and others have been
fighting for may simply evaporate.

Janz believes that this is a very real possibility.
"One day, users will not say 'I am a customer of
Amazon,' but 'I am a customer of Acses,'"
he said.

That's significant potential. Yet Cassar said that
often the portal sites' shopbots are hard to find.
"The fact [is] that they are not promoting shopping
bots heavily."

Although Net surfers are obviously willing to give
sites like CDnow and Amazon a shot, are surfers
that desperate for low prices? Ernia Dubois,
analyst at Dataquest, said that a price difference
of only one or two dollars may not entice someone
to try a new vendor.

Barnes & Noble spokesman Ben Boyd was
noncommittal. "Being that we were the first to
bring deep discounts to the Net, we feel
comfortable with our prices. There are a lot of
options for the consumer on the Internet." Boyd
added that B&N customer service will continue to
make the site a draw for book lovers.

Some analysts agreed that people would not buy
blindly from shopbots. "Commodities are bot
fodder, but I don't think anyone wants to relegate
all their 'shopping' to bots. Where's the fun?"
asked Larry Dietz, analyst at Zona Research.

"But merchants have to be careful," said Cassar.
"It is crucial that the customer feels they have
made a purchase from your site." He singled out
customer rewards plans and push advertising as
brand loyalty enhancers, as well as other offerings
like book reviews and additional content.

But he warned that the distinction between what a
shopbot and an Amazon offers is becoming blurry.

"If a shopping bot starts to offer [these services],
they will start to encroach. If they step on toes too
heavily, the Amazons will be willing to sacrifice the
traffic they would have gotten, in order to eliminate
a future competitor."




To: Dow Jones Reporter who wrote (84)5/28/1998 2:43:00 PM
From: Candle stick  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 182
 
Amazon.com (AMZN) 86 5/8: BA Robertson Stephens upgrades from "long-term attractive" to "buy" and raises its price target from $65 to $88 a share; believes there is upside to current EPS estimates and room to raise price target as the company demonstrates more revenue and customer growth and leverage on marketing expenses; lowers 1998 EPS from loss of $2.84 to loss of $3.05 and 1999 estimate from loss of $2.17 to loss of $2.35 a share, but ups year 2000 EPS from profit of $0.02 to $0.12 and 2001 from $1.30 to $1.75 a share....

Someone explain why I want to buy a 90 dollar stock today, in this teetering market environment, that will lose ($3.15) in 1998 and LOSE ($2.15) in 1999 just because it MIGHT make 2 cents in 2000.......MANIA!?..........;^)