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: H James Morris who wrote (19742)	10/2/1998 8:12:00 PM
From: OtherChap	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>It always appears to me they are trying to hide as much information >as possible If your losses had gone up 200% in the last month, partly because your business model never worked and partly because after AOL lost to the SEC you realize you can't write off Junglee and Planetall anymore, then you'd try and hide as much information about your real balance sheet as possible. Take a look at Network Associates- they've got billions in revenues but a few days ago some analysts questioned whether or not they could keep writing off every company they buy as a "one time charge" from here to eternity. Even though NETA has good profits, their stock is now trading around 30 bucks. I still haven't heard an answer from william on why Netscape no longer can command the price premium of the other internet darlings. After all, it still has more revenue than Amazon, and is far closer to making a profit. Could it be that Vinik was ready to move on to Amazon and Yahoo?

To: H James Morris who wrote (19742)	10/2/1998 8:16:00 PM
From: OtherChap	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

BTW, the great thing about a company like Amazon, which has never turned a profit and only has losses, is that when they issue more stock (instead of using cash- which Bezos probably has tied up in a hedge fund) and dilute the shareholder equity, it.. get this.. MAKES THEIR LOSSES PER SHARE SMALLER. If they do a 2:1 stock split, then their losses per share can be hyped and press released as ".40 cents" instead of ".80 cents" Now of course, most legitimate companies that have earnings dont like to dilute their stock, because it lowers their earnings per share. So it seems to me that Amazon has every incentive in the world to issue hundreds of millions more shares in secondaries, then eventually their loss per share would drop to zero. Since they themselves had said not to expect any profits until the year 2002, they've got plenty of time to print more money, er, I mean shares.. So I guess knowing this, those extra 13 million shares from the junglee and planetall folks could actually make Amazon's results look better, just due to the fact that it increases the number of outstanding shares.

To: H James Morris who wrote (19742)	10/2/1998 9:09:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Glen<l. It always appears to me they are trying to hide as much information as possible> If you need more information, may I suggest that you ask William to get it from Mary Meeker when they have lunch. She seems to know more about Amazon.con than most. James, I need to have lunch with Mary Meeker. I believe I have read everything but I do not understand it. Maybe using smaller words will help me. Glenn