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 (16358)	9/7/1998 12:43:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

I suppose it is possible that, for some reason, they are lumped in with some other large holder as a "controlled group" for SEC reporting purposes and together they account for 10% ownership (or did long ago), but I haven't found anything to indicate that either. B&T is partly owned by a DC based investment firm called The Carlyle Group - have they shown up on any 13(d) or other filings? Anyway, assertions that they are paying for inventory with stock are the kind of baseless assertions that could end up getting one sued. OC should ask a couple other posters here how much fun that is. Besides, there is plenty else for which to criticize the company, its valuation, and the analysts who cover it. Bob, Let's look at my posts. I in no way stated that that it is fact or close to fact that B & K were being payed via stock. Rather, I was and still am trying to reconcile the Yahoo information. I find it strange that Yahoo shows B & K owning 5 million shares. I know Yahoo could be incorrect and we did discuss that. Keep in mind that there could have been an issuance after the end of last quarter. Thus, this information would not show until the 10Q for the quarter ending in September. It is possible that Yahoo is correct and this information will not be filed until the next 10Q. I could tear Amazon a part in thousands of ways excluding this. I was speculating again due to the third straight sell by B & T at the beginning of a month. I believe I have tore into Amazon's fundamentals many times and will continue in the future. They have none. It is my opinion smart money on the street is starting to fear the viability of Amazon. The junk bonds are not being as well received. Losses are increasing at a unbelievable rate. No one is projecting a profit at least until the year 2003 unless it is an analyst that has not updated their report since the last quarter. Finally, I did not assert that Amazon was paying for their books with their stock. I was speculation based on the limited information available. Spculation on Amazon runs rampid. There is speculation that they will be the "Walmart of the net" whatever that means. There is speculation that MSFT will eventually purchase them. There is more speculation with this company than any other I have ever followed. There is good reason for the speculation. The reports that are filed by Amazon with the SEC leave out the most pertinent information in my opinion but they still remain within the law. A good example was the three acquisitions last March. The revenues of the acquired companies were not disclosed. The balance sheet such as cash in the bank held by these acquired companys and virtually anything else that was significant was not disclosed. Amazon does not disclose how much they pay for marketing compared to fulfillment expenses. How is one to know what the operating profit would be without advertising? They assert they would be profitable without advertising. How could we know? We know nothing about Amazon because Amazon chooses to release such little information about themselves. That is an invitation for an investor to speculate. If Amazon has a concern about speculation negative or positive, they should file more thorough information and use GAAP during their conference calls. The conference calls also are limited to analysts only. I believe the press was not even permitted the last time. A recording of the conference calls out to be available to the investors after the call if there are too many people with the desire to hear during the call. How companies do not have a recording of their conference calls at least available for a few days? Thank you for hearing me out<G> Glenn