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: Tom Kearney who wrote (13432)	8/13/1998 11:40:00 AM
From: H James Morris	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 164684

Tom and Glen.You guys just don't get it. The 'Thing' is not about books anymore and it hasn't been for the last month. Its about e-commerce and Wall Street has decided that Amzn won. Since there's no video tape available to watch the race that Amzn won, don't mess with it. Trust me.

To: Tom Kearney who wrote (13432)	8/13/1998 12:04:00 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

And that's the whole point, isn't it? No. The point is generating a return on invested capital. BKS has proven that they can do that in spite of the "high infrastructure costs". AMZN has admitted that they can not, in spite of supposedly minimal infrastructure costs, and has changed it's strategy in the hope of finding one that will provide positive returns. While it is too their credit that they aren't sticking stubbornly to a failed business model, there is no basis for the assumption that their prospects are now brighter than they were previously and wrongly assumed to be under the old model. Yet, the fact that they used up their IPO funding on a plan that didn't work, went out and borrowed much more to fund expansion of that concept to other products, then decided to issue even more stock to find a new strategy is somehow interpreted by you bulls as success. You still confuse stock price with business success. An 888% gain is a major monetary success for the traders who made that. An even bigger gain for the VCs is a monetary success for the fund's investors. But neither of these successes in any way proves that the business is or ever will be an operating success. To be successful, the business MUST produce returns on invested capital that meet or exceed the cost of that capital. That's based on the original investments, BTW, not today's price. A business can be an operating success, but if you pay to much for it's stock in the secondary market, it can still be a lousy investment. To be a successful investment (as opposed to a successful short term trade which may have nothing to do with the underlying business) at this time, the business must produce returns measured on today's price that meet or exceed the required return of the investor. Maybe I just don't "get it". I'm just a long term investor trapped in a market filled with "momentum day traders" who couldn't care less what a company does much less whether they do it well.

To: Tom Kearney who wrote (13432)	8/13/1998 12:47:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

Glenn - Of course, but I think my point is obvious. B&N's investment in that one store would probably equal a large fraction of AMZN's infrastructure cost. And that's the whole point, isn't it? Tom, It is very likely that B&N superstore will make a profit that will pay for the store and continue to be profitable in years to come. That is the whole point, isn't it? I am from the old school where I learned turning a profit was the key to retail success. Those with losses eventually go bankrupct. You do not agree with that? Glenn