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: Bill Harmond who wrote (16968)	9/12/1998 1:49:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 164684

william, their overall share is growing for sure (all markets). their internet share would not appear to be growing as it is already so large and competition is fierce. citing b&n only as some sort of analysis is borderline ridiculous. i guess we have to say we don't know, though i'd bet i'm right.

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (16968)	9/12/1998 3:22:00 AM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

If AMZN loses $50 million to achieve 2.5% market share, will they lose $150 million to get to 7.5%? Also, a comment on the Microsoft/Amazon comparisons. If I'm not mistaken Microsoft was profitable when it came public in 1986 and had a market cap of around $519 million. Contrast that to AMZN, which is predicted to lose money for the foreseeable future yet still sports a market cap of almost $4 billion, even after this big decline. My how times have changed... P.S. I realize that when comparing market caps you have to adjust for some inflation, and I am using AMZN's current market cap, not their IPO market cap. Still the comparison holds, M$FT profitable and $500 million market cap, AMZN not profitable this century and $4 billion market cap. Similar story for Cisco. Cisco had a 5 year earnings growth rate of 257% the year came public. Just trying to offer a little perspective.

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (16968)	9/12/1998 8:54:00 AM
From: llamaphlegm	Respond to of 164684

William: SBUX is an instructive example of another wildly overpriced stock (yes been bearish on that one since the upper 50s and still am). Built into the stock price is massive supermarket sales, domination of ice cream sales and all sorts of ridiculous assumptions about new stores and same store sales growth. And they made money. Well, the market is starting to reprice reality into the company again. A good company? yes. Good coffee (for mass consumption, yes). But they too run into real world distribution, growth and competitive problems. Don't believe me? Go to some of their stores and see if you can find the good service ones and the ones manned (or womanned) by pre-pubescent, nose-ringed surly kids or folks just released from 12 step programs dedicated to those who can't do anything right the first time (let alone quickly). Tight labor markets limit everyone's growth. By the way, SBUX is also afflicted with the "quick, let's panic and start selling all sorts of other garbage and pretend that this will justify our stock price" malady. Jazz cds? This tiazzi drink cr-p? Please. Oh, and please stop making spurious arguments about the growth of amzn and its online share. Go back and actually read the 10Q (really, it doesn't hurt) and the comments from Bezos and Covey from the last 1/4's conference. Bezos estimated a total of 10% of all book sales to be on line in the foreseeable future. That ain't gonna come close to justifying the stock price (better hope those other products sell like hotcakes). Oh, he also predicts slowing book sales growth and tells us that the music on line sales industry is highly competitive with even thinner margins than books (How does one get thinner than losing $7.15 for each book you sell? Ask Heard on the Street column in this past wed. WSJ) LP