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: Candle stick who wrote (4955)	6/3/1998 9:00:00 AM
From: tekgk	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 164684

forbes.com "My colleague Stephen Wright, an economics lecturer at Cambridge University, has had discussions with fellow academics in American universities and with fund managers. He has shown that we now have enough data to test James Tobin's "q" theory, first propounded in 1969. Briefly, q theory says that the value of business assets-as reflected in stock prices must revert to the cost of replicating those assets." Since the statistical evidence is in, one could easily argue that AMZN is worth ZERO. Given their current burn rate, they will have negative net worth by the end of the quarter. This seems very easy to replicate -g-. Actually, seriously, I have been involved in putting up several large web sites and my estimate is that the AMZN web site software, hardware etc. can be replicated for under 2 million easily. Since they don't own anything else physically this makes them worth a tiny fraction of the current value. The only argument left is that the brand name is worth 2 billion. They have spent less than 40 million on advertising, once again, the current valuation argument falls flat on it's face given the q theory. The other issues is that brand name requires constant care and feeding - something that AMZN's dirt bag accountant implies is false with her stupid EBITDMA argument.