William:
You posted
<<<
>>how boilerplate amzn's language is.
Show me the word "boilerplate" in my post; I didn't use it. There is no 10Q
published that makes a case for investing in a stock. It is a document intended to
outline risk. Therefore (as I posted), no one would buy a stock based solely on the
10Q, not even Microsoft.
As far as the rest of your post goes, I'm looking at how Amazon progresses, not it's
Q-Q earnings. So is the Street. You can jump up and down all you want about
accelerating losses, but the Street doesn't buy your story. They are watching how
Amazon develops its franchise and its competitive position. Your current-earnings
concern doesn't matter. It's the wrong valuation metric in this case, like it was the
wrong valuation metric for AOL in its early years. In AOL's case then, just like now
with Amazon, the shorts got creamed by AOL's advance because they didn't have
their eye on the game ball.>>>
1. I appreciate having generally civil bulls with whom to joust on this board, so don't take my spirited comebacks the wrong way.
2. Glenn pointed out that AMZN's 10Q is rife with a number of risks which are far from ordinary in terms of magnitude, number and type. You retort, as you now explain, that no one would buy ANY stock based on a 10Q alone -- that may be true, but has absolutely NOTHING to do with Glenn's point which I took to be that the company is phenomenally risky and has pointed out a number of areas in which its entire business plan could come crashing down. The tone of your reply and some of the things you said clearly implied that "oh, it's just a 10Q with legalese, you can more or less ignore it." Glenn was certainly NOT claiming that the 10Q pionted out risks rather than a glwoing case for the company (Glenn's a little too experienced and savvy not to understand what a 10Q is about).
So if you think anyone is making the point that amzn's 10 is not positive and upbeat about the company, they're not. They are, instead , saying that the company has far more and greater risks than other companies.
2. You might try a little consistency or definitional rigor here. Earlier yesterday you were jumping up and down about how amzn actually beat estimates and now you're telling me that you're not focused on earnings (or apparently losses) but on how amzn "progresses."
Ok, let's define progress, according to you.
a. competitive position & franchise
Books.
Let's see, BKS already catching up quite impressively, getting better rankings for ease of use in book web sites, Borders about to launch after its public preview period, and Bertelsmann about to as well (deep pockets, can cut out middle man entirely.
Music.
Despite the peurile rantings of David Gardner over at TMF, AMzn is NOT already 1 or 2. It's entering a market with thinner margins (ask Bezos not me) with many competitors who are more established, have deep pockets and an established brand name. It's service and ease of use rated fifth recently in an independent review posted here, and there are already technologies which will leapfrog and cut out on line retailers as downloads grow in popularity.
Vidoes.
Same as music just moreso since amzn has barely gotten off the ground there.
SHop Bot/portal/e commerce hub
Please make the argument that it has any competitive advantage over other bots, yhoo, msn, aol, seek, lcos, nscp, xcit, et al ....
3. You don't know what the "right" valuation metric is. To date, it's unclear what it should be, though you are correct, the market has not been using earnings. Before you get too smug in your belief that you know that metric, you might allow for the fact that the market has not been using any metric and that the stock price has simply exploded as a function of supply and demand (read p. lynch if you need a refresher on the short v. long term pricing of securities) and has nothing at all to do with any metric. When the demand slows (even more than it already has), then perhaps metrics, valuation tools, etc. will be relevant again. By the way, I've actually got a decent idea of what the "street" does and does not buy about internet stocks, and most analysts in the hi tech and other sectors (who are not busy prosituting their intellectual integrity for IBanking business) are treating them an absolute joke, particularly amzn.
4. Spare me the you're all wrong, just look at AOL case. AOL's already in hot water for its ingenious accounting again. Read the articles from today's NYT. Is it just possible that AOL too is overvalued or do you want to explain to me why anyone other than a total techno moron would ever use this service and pay money when you can use any number of free of portals. Do you think that inertia will help them less when new computers have links to msn, yhoo, et al, which charge no subscription fees. AOL may be properly priced (I don't think so, but it could be), but it will take years to find out. The game has hardly begun.
5. If you're so locked into your bullish prism that you can somehow turn mary meeker's statement about being more comfortable with the stock trading at 50% it's current value into anything other than a deeply bearish statement, then discussion is probably fruitless. By all means, mortgage the home and buy amzn at these levels.
6. I doubt very much that you understand what the "game ball' is. Try not to confuse your brilliant insights into market momentum, concept stocks and just plain old dumb luck with investing skills. In some markets it will work. BTW< any bear with half a brain, is quite capable of using any number of hedge techniques to avoid getting creamed. KTEL hurt bears on the way up, but fundamentals ultimately took hold, and they cleaned up on the way back down. Iomega ring a bell, Zitel.
LP |
