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 (17007)	9/12/1998 3:19:00 PM
From: Mark Fowler	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

I don't know if you saw this article: Why Amazon.com Is Unstoppable zdnet.com

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (17007)	9/12/1998 3:43:00 PM
From: H James Morris	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Oh William I'm starting to feel that Mary Meeker is your prophet. Just because she made you lots of $$ with Aol, and helped hype the 'Thing' to $147ps, doesn't mean she can't get her you know what in a wringer. At least Jamie Kerrigan of DLJ with all his Amzn hype said, "We don't consider Amzn to be a value play" . On Amazon.com, Mary Meeker is full of shit. Oh, I forgot that she works for Morgan Stanley. We all know that Morgan Stanley has a huge interest in Amzn! So I guess, so does she! Have you checked Amzn's Junk bonds lately? I have! Remember them? Those are the Junk bonds that your Morgan Stanley & Co raised, giving Bezos his stay alive $325mil. William, Morgan Stanley only charged Bezos $25mil for the service. With this close relationship, its only fair that Morgan Stanley set up a hedge for Bezos so he can get out a billionaire, when his business model runs out of gas. Don't you think? Good luck.

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (17007)	9/12/1998 4:14:00 PM
From: llamaphlegm	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

William: You crack me up. Well at least you attempted a reply to ONE of the numerous questions posted to you. Never did get around to the one about the importance or irrelevance of the YHOO ad deals, but I'm sure you will (NOT). 1. AMZN's marketing/revenue has in fact declined over the past year. 2. This is caused by its increase in revenue. Faster growth here than in costs. 3. AMZN's management has stated (did you ever read the 10K, I'd really like to think that you're not just wasting the time of all those who have) that it anticipates much slower growth in the book market. 4. MGT. has also stated that it anticipates increased competition (duh!!!) and no decrease (and possible increase) in marketing costs. 5. 3 + 4 = higher marketing/revenues. 6. Marketing costs include all sorts of goodies not usually included there (but rather in SG&A) so there's certainly room for manipulation of this number. 7. Interesting that you choose 2 companies in the music e tailing sector. Are you trying to prove my point for me? OK, you're right. AMZN is now entering saturated markets, where competition is spending fiercely to attract and retain clients (remember all those silly bull arguments about inertia and once you have an online account with an etailer not wanting another one in the same industry, well sort of works against you in the music industry,eh???), where, Bezos tells us the margins are even thinner, and which will complicate amzn's logistical nightmare and acute labor shortage (go back and read ( I know I'm hard on you, asking you to actually NOT ignore any data point that contradicts your monetary interests) the Heard on the Street column). 8. If those companies have high marketing/sales and and amzn has a low one and yet, amzn has managed to stay wildly unprofitable, where will amzn find its cost savings to make itself popular since it currently LOSES $7.50 EACH TIME IT SELLS A BOOK. If cdnow and ntki also go bankrupt or are now scooped up as a much cheaper acquisition by another company, it does not mean that amzn will fare any better in the future. If you believe what you write, than please for your own sake, at least consider the emerging mountain of data and articles that call amzn's future profitability into question. If you're just trying to drum up other bullish support to make yourself feel better, than knock yourself out, but in months of posting you have yet to point to hard numbers which will justify ANY stock price for amzn. LP

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (17007)	9/12/1998 8:25:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

rofitability: Operating losses as a percentage of revenues have consistently declined. Scale has allowed AMZN's costs to decline as a percentage of sales. William, Of course they decliened as a percentage of sals. Sales have increased. Marketing and payroll has increased too but at this rate of decline as a percentage of sales, when does the marketing and sales percentage become low enough to become profitable? Mary's statement is supported Amazon's quarterly reports. Sales and Marketing as a percentage of revenue for quarters ending: 6/97 27.9%, 9/97 28.9%, 12/97 24.7%, 3/98 22.3%, 6/98 22.8%. It appears there is a point of dimishing returns. The Sales and Marketing as a percentage of sales actually increased from the 3/98 quarter to the 6/98. The cause is the increased competition which AMZN did not have in the past. The competition is coming on strong now and Marketing as a percentage of revenue will now start to increase. This will make profitablility impossible. Also, loan interest continues to increase. I believe Mary ought to take some accounting or a refresher if it has been too long. Glenn