This seems to be the norm in the Tech industry. The media always pulls for an underdog and builds them up. The underdog doesn't have to be a small company. A big company doing something very different in a new market (such as the iPhone and iPad) works. Once they build them up, they wait for any sign their innovation is "slowing", then they're teardown them down and look for a new underdog.
I just think the honeymoon is over for Apple. Just like Google was able to hide behind its "do no evil" mantra for years before they were called on it, Apple had a great reputation and avoided a lot of the negative press for years. That's no longer true. Their successful, and that's something many in America cannot stomach: success.
I don't think Apple had a honeymoon. People have been predicting its demise since 1997. The media had questioned everything Apple has released since then too. Lately though is the media's insistence that they were right despite reality. They put out negative "reports" as if only Apple uses Chinese labor and make mountains out of mole hills.
I see Google's stock is up over 6% so far today and they've been upgraded. I don't think there's anything Apple can do to change the narrative. They'll have a good quarter but give conservative guidance and the stock will tank after hours.
I don't think Apple had a honeymoon. People have been predicting its demise since 1997. The media had questioned everything Apple has released since then too. Lately though is the media's insistence that they were right despite reality. They put out negative "reports" as if only Apple uses Chinese labor and make mountains out of mole hills.
I don't think Apple had a honeymoon. People have been predicting its demise since 1997.
I don't see why the mention 1997. Apple experienced its largest net loss ever then. If there was any point in the media was justified in questioning if Apple could recover, it was back then. In 2013 though, it is absolutely crazy.
Quote:
The media had questioned everything Apple has released since then too. Lately though is the media's insistence that they were right despite reality. They put out negative "reports" as if only Apple uses Chinese labor and make mountains out of mole hills.
Apple has always had its critics. Particularly the outlets that love to embrace Linux and open-source have always had an agenda and always have a negative tone towards Apple.
Aside from the part of the media that will never like Apple, the mainstream media has helped fuel the Apple craze the last few years. Every major rumor regarding the iPhone made it to the morning news. I can't even begin to estimate how many pages worth of articles have been written speculating what the next iPhone (or iPad) would bring. At this point last year, the main focus was on what features would be added to the iPad 3. This year, the media is focused on the stock price and the earnings call is the main event. CNET, which has always seemed fairly pro-Apple to me, recently published and "Why the next iPhone won't impress" article. The new trend in the mainstream media is to question Apple's future despite the stellar year.
I guess if all you look for is critics, it is all you will see. Yes, they've always been there and they always will be. That said, the overall tone of the blogs and sites that I follow has change drastically in the last few months when it comes to Apple. Numbers and facts don't seem to matter, and it seems journalist are now more interested in speculating about how all the facts that look good for Apple are actually bad.
The loss of Forstall was a plus. He was not very well like in the Apple hierarchy.
yes. i believe he was holding iOS back, stubbornly refusing to incorporate any user-friendly elements of Android or others in the name of iOS 'purity.' he would accept direction/orders from Jobs, but probably not from Cook/Ives. so he had to go.
thus i expect iOS 7 to incorporate quite a few new user conveniences and maybe even have a 'fresher' look overall. this will be one real indication of Apple really entering the "post-Jobs" era. all the 2012 Apple products had to have had their origins while Jobs was still in control. but 2013 software and hardware will show the first major outcomes of the new team's decisions about hardware and software.
i think some of the overall negative energy about Apple - the rational part - reflects this unavoidable period of uncertainty about the new leadership team. today's earnings call won't resolve that no matter how good. we do not yet really know where they are going to take the company. for the last two years they have been busy executing - very successfully - the concepts Jobs had laid out. but from here on it's really their era.
I don't see why the mention 1997. Apple experienced its largest net loss ever then. If there was any point in the media was justified in questioning if Apple could recover, it was back then. In 2013 though, it is absolutely crazy.
Apple has always had its critics. Particularly the outlets that love to embrace Linux and open-source have always had an agenda and always have a negative tone towards Apple.
Aside from the part of the media that will never like Apple, the mainstream media has helped fuel the Apple craze the last few years. Every major rumor regarding the iPhone made it to the morning news. I can't even begin to estimate how many pages worth of articles have been written speculating what the next iPhone (or iPad) would bring. At this point last year, the main focus was on what features would be added to the iPad 3. This year, the media is focused on the stock price and the earnings call is the main event. CNET, which has always seemed fairly pro-Apple to me, recently published and "Why the next iPhone won't impress" article. The new trend in the mainstream media is to question Apple's future despite the stellar year.
I guess if all you look for is critics, it is all you will see. Yes, they've always been there and they always will be. That said, the overall tone of the blogs and sites that I follow has change drastically in the last few months when it comes to Apple. Numbers and facts don't seem to matter, and it seems journalist are now more interested in speculating about how all the facts that look good for Apple are actually bad.
Maybe that's the case, but I recall the media skeptical of the first iPhone, derisive of the iPad, and "disappointed" when the next gen devices aren't radically different than the prev gen.
Please explain the price of AMZN using your thesis.
It is exactly the same. If Amazon beats expections its stock price will go up. If it does not meet expectation its price will go down.
The key there is expectations. Amazon is often expected to lose a lot of money. So if analysts have valued them on expectations of them losing $300million in a quarter and Amazon 'only' reports losses $100million their stock price will jump up nicely. Apple's share price could be based on expectations that they will make $20 billion in a quarter. Say Apple makes 'only' $18billion in profit that quarter...
Were they to report on the same day, Amazon, who reported a loss of $100million, will see its stock jump up. Apple, who reported a profit of $18billion, would see its shares drop. People would come here and complain about that (ZOMG Wall Street hates Apple! *Record* profits of $18billion and their share price drops when Failazon loses $100million and shares go up! This is price fixing and market manipulation!!! Prooff!!!). Why don't those same people complain, "Apple makes @$100b in revenues a year, Amazon makes @$75b a year. How come Amazons stock price isn't 3/4 of Apples price? Reality is Apples price is valued at more like 4x Amazons value! The answer is the same, its already built into their valuation. Amazons market cap of only $150b on $75b/a year in revenue is based on low expectations of them losing $300m a quarter. Apples valuation of $550billion+ on their $100b a year in revenue is based on them profiting $20b a quarter. If either fails or succeeds in respect to their own expectations they will go up or down accordingly.
What confuses people about Amazon is how a company that routinely loses money quarter to quarter can continue to have an increasing share value. That one is pretty easy too. A stocks valuation is based on the net present value of future expected earnings. Don't look at Amazons profits for a second- look at their revenue. Woah! $75b a year and still growing at 30% plus per year, and their market is expected to continue growing for years to come. At current rates expectation are their market will be a $1,000,000,000,000 market by 2016 (one trillion). Of that Amazon is expected to command at least 1/4, or $250billion a year. With current revenues around $75b, a profit or loss of $100million one way or the other is basically chump change and it is actually strategically planned by Amazon. Amazons model is based on them trying not to make a large profit. They reinvest everything they make back into the company and basically try to target as close to zero profit as they can and usually miss slightly one way or the other. They see their market growing tremendously, why would they sacrifice growing along with their market so they can 'report' profits and give their money to the government. They could have skyrocketing profits if they chose to stop growing. Instead they grow and continue to build more and more million square foot+ distribution centers that are the most automated in the world. Their 'dream' goal is to achieve same day shipping on anything you could want to order. If they achieve that expectations are they will have a 'Walmart' or 'Home Depot' effect- only instead of putting your mom&pop stores or small hardware stores out of business, Amazon will be driving Malls out of business. Why would I dress up, gas up, sit through traffic, shop through a limited selection at a store (if they even have in stock what I want), pay a high retail price, and drive home when I could just click online, get exactly what I want at a much lower price, and have it delivered to my home in about the same time as if I had gone out to the mall?
That reality isn't here yet. So you can take your pick. Amazon is either a company that is horrendously overvalued based on them routinely losing millions of dollars, or they are a company that is horrendously undervalued based on the fact that their growth continues to be staggering and should they ever decide to 'flip the switch' and generate profits instead of growth they'll be turning huge numbers. Which one is right? I don't know. Take your pick and either buy a ton of shares, or sell them.
It is exactly the same. If Amazon beats expections its stock price will go up. If it does not meet expectation its price will go down.
The key there is expectations. Amazon is often expected to lose a lot of money. So if analysts have valued them on expectations of them losing $300million in a quarter and Amazon 'only' reports losses $100million their stock price will jump up nicely. Apple's share price could be based on expectations that they will make $20 billion in a quarter. Say Apple makes 'only' $18billion in profit that quarter...
Were they to report on the same day, Amazon, who reported a loss of $100million, will see its stock jump up. Apple, who reported a profit of $18billion, would see its shares drop. People would come here and complain about that (ZOMG Wall Street hates Apple! *Record* profits of $18billion and their share price drops when Failazon loses $100million and shares go up! This is price fixing and market manipulation!!! Prooff!!!). Why don't those same people complain, "Apple makes @$100b in revenues a year, Amazon makes @$75b a year. How come Amazons stock price isn't 3/4 of Apples price? Reality is Apples price is valued at more like 4x Amazons value! The answer is the same, its already built into their valuation. Amazons market cap of only $150b on $75b/a year in revenue is based on low expectations of them losing $300m a quarter. Apples valuation of $550billion+ on their $100b a year in revenue is based on them profiting $20b a quarter. If either fails or succeeds in respect to their own expectations they will go up or down accordingly.
What confuses people about Amazon is how a company that routinely loses money quarter to quarter can continue to have an increasing share value. That one is pretty easy too. A stocks valuation is based on the net present value of future expected earnings. Don't look at Amazons profits for a second- look at their revenue. Woah! $75b a year and still growing at 30% plus per year, and their market is expected to continue growing for years to come. At current rates expectation are their market will be a $1,000,000,000,000 market by 2016 (one trillion). Of that Amazon is expected to command at least 1/4, or $250billion a year. With current revenues around $75b, a profit or loss of $100million one way or the other is basically chump change and it is actually strategically planned by Amazon. Amazons model is based on them trying not to make a large profit. They reinvest everything they make back into the company and basically try to target as close to zero profit as they can and usually miss slightly one way or the other. They see their market growing tremendously, why would they sacrifice growing along with their market so they can 'report' profits and give their money to the government. They could have skyrocketing profits if they chose to stop growing. Instead they grow and continue to build more and more million square foot+ distribution centers that are the most automated in the world. Their 'dream' goal is to achieve same day shipping on anything you could want to order. If they achieve that expectations are they will have a 'Walmart' or 'Home Depot' effect- only instead of putting your mom&pop stores or small hardware stores out of business, Amazon will be driving Malls out of business. Why would I dress up, gas up, sit through traffic, shop through a limited selection at a store (if they even have in stock what I want), pay a high retail price, and drive home when I could just click online, get exactly what I want at a much lower price, and have it delivered to my home in about the same time as if I had gone out to the mall?
That reality isn't here yet. So you can take your pick. Amazon is either a company that is horrendously overvalued based on them routinely losing millions of dollars, or they are a company that is horrendously undervalued based on the fact that their growth continues to be staggering and should they ever decide to 'flip the switch' and generate profits instead of growth they'll be turning huge numbers. Which one is right? I don't know. Take your pick and either buy a ton of shares, or sell them.
oh boy have you drunk the Wal Street kool aid.
any purchase of equity based on "expectations" that are significantly beyond current performance - like Amazon - is "speculation," not "investment." in Amazon's case we are looking at an extremely example that is driven by the "greater fool" theory - i think i can get someone to pay more than i did based on hype, not actuals. this is common in the tech world of course. gullible people think it's different than other types of businesses and hope to hit a jackpot. once in a while, it really happens - like Apple - so that pulls in the imprudent. it's kinda like playing casino blackjack - in theory you can win, and the best players do, but long term most lose.
the best case scenario for Amazon is that it can become the WalMart of the web with substantial profit margins on large volume sales. the worst case is it becomes the Safeway of the web with small margins on large volume sales - which is where it's at today. given the rapidly growing ubiquity of price comparison via web shopping it is impossible to describe how Amazon can make this shift successfully. WalMart just has to beat other brick and motar competitors. but Google and many others will always be there and undercut Amazon if it tries - it's the world wide web!
any purchase of equity based on "expectations" that are significantly beyond current performance - like Amazon - is "speculation," not "investment." in Amazon's case we are looking at an extremely example that is driven by the "greater fool" theory - i think i can get someone to pay more than i did based on hype, not actuals. this is common in the tech world of course. gullible people think it's different than other types of businesses and hope to hit a jackpot. once in a while, it really happens - like Apple - so that pulls in the imprudent. it's kinda like playing casino blackjack - in theory you can win, and the best players do, but long term most lose.
the best case scenario for Amazon is that it can become the WalMart of the web with substantial profit margins on large volume sales. the worst case is it becomes the Safeway of the web with small margins on large volume sales - which is where it's at today. given the rapidly growing ubiquity of price comparison via web shopping it is impossible to describe how Amazon can make this shift successfully. WalMart just has to beat other brick and motar competitors. but Google and many others will always be there and undercut Amazon if it tries - it's the world wide web!
that's a crummy hand to play, throw the cards in.
If I had drunk the cool aid I would own Amazon shares. I do not =p That doesn't mean I can't recognize cool aid for what it is made of. I agree with you that if you choose to buy Amazon you are engaging in speculation. But that's allowed. You can go gamble all your money away if you choose to as well. I can tell you the odds of many games as well but I'm probably not going to join you at the table.
I wouldn't go as far as you and say that anyone who buys Amazon shares is a fool. They are simply willing to take a risk and believe that 1) the online retail business is going to continue to grow and 2) Amazon is going to be in a position to do it better than anyone else. Amazon is never going to go for high margins. Ever. They are all about making small margings on everything sold under the sun (at least in online retail- their other businesses like cloud computing are a seperate entity). Your statement that Google and other online retailers will undercut Amazon (it's the world wide web!) shows you haven't been paying attention to what Amazon is doing nor what their strength is. Amazon is all about the delivery and the infrastructure. They actually relish online price matching more than any other company.
Google: We've found the cheapest price for this zoodle you wanted! It's $39.95
Amazon: Our price for the zoodle you wanted is $39.95
Hmmm.... I'll go with Google.
Google: Where do you live? ...... Maine
Google: When do you want it by?..... Today.
Google: The company selling it at that price is in California. We can fly it out to you NFO today for only $350 shipping.
erm... no
Google: We can do next day shipping for only $49.99!
erm... no the thing only costs 39.99
Google: We can do 3 day shipping for $19.99
No?.... anywhere from 1 week to 2 weeks for $4.99?
hmmm...
Let me check amazon.
Zoodle price $39.95
Would you like it today?.... Yes
Are you an Amazon prime member?
Yes ---> okay it will be there today.
No --> we can get it there today for $4.99
Amazon does not have that capability yet (and even they are skeptical they can actually achieve it) but they are actively and agressively building actively toward that infrastructure or as close as they can get to it). There is a world of difference between finding you the lowest price on the web and actually delivering it to you for that price or close to it.
any purchase of equity based on "expectations" that are significantly beyond current performance - like Amazon - is "speculation," not "investment." in Amazon's case we are looking at an extremely example that is driven by the "greater fool" theory - i think i can get someone to pay more than i did based on hype, not actuals. this is common in the tech world of course. gullible people think it's different than other types of businesses and hope to hit a jackpot. once in a while, it really happens - like Apple - so that pulls in the imprudent. it's kinda like playing casino blackjack - in theory you can win, and the best players do, but long term most lose.
the best case scenario for Amazon is that it can become the WalMart of the web with substantial profit margins on large volume sales. the worst case is it becomes the Safeway of the web with small margins on large volume sales - which is where it's at today. given the rapidly growing ubiquity of price comparison via web shopping it is impossible to describe how Amazon can make this shift successfully. WalMart just has to beat other brick and motar competitors. but Google and many others will always be there and undercut Amazon if it tries - it's the world wide web!
that's a crummy hand to play, throw the cards in.
If you want 'investment' look at dividend stocks or bonds. Non-dividend paying equities ARE all about speculation.
And Amazon is more about infrastructure and technology than retail, which is why no one has (and likely won't) beat them at their own game.
Comments
I don't think Apple had a honeymoon. People have been predicting its demise since 1997. The media had questioned everything Apple has released since then too. Lately though is the media's insistence that they were right despite reality. They put out negative "reports" as if only Apple uses Chinese labor and make mountains out of mole hills.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
I don't think Apple had a honeymoon. People have been predicting its demise since 1997. The media had questioned everything Apple has released since then too. Lately though is the media's insistence that they were right despite reality. They put out negative "reports" as if only Apple uses Chinese labor and make mountains out of mole hills.
Since 1984 to be exact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
I don't think Apple had a honeymoon. People have been predicting its demise since 1997.
I don't see why the mention 1997. Apple experienced its largest net loss ever then. If there was any point in the media was justified in questioning if Apple could recover, it was back then. In 2013 though, it is absolutely crazy.
Quote:
The media had questioned everything Apple has released since then too. Lately though is the media's insistence that they were right despite reality. They put out negative "reports" as if only Apple uses Chinese labor and make mountains out of mole hills.
Apple has always had its critics. Particularly the outlets that love to embrace Linux and open-source have always had an agenda and always have a negative tone towards Apple.
Aside from the part of the media that will never like Apple, the mainstream media has helped fuel the Apple craze the last few years. Every major rumor regarding the iPhone made it to the morning news. I can't even begin to estimate how many pages worth of articles have been written speculating what the next iPhone (or iPad) would bring. At this point last year, the main focus was on what features would be added to the iPad 3. This year, the media is focused on the stock price and the earnings call is the main event. CNET, which has always seemed fairly pro-Apple to me, recently published and "Why the next iPhone won't impress" article. The new trend in the mainstream media is to question Apple's future despite the stellar year.
I guess if all you look for is critics, it is all you will see. Yes, they've always been there and they always will be. That said, the overall tone of the blogs and sites that I follow has change drastically in the last few months when it comes to Apple. Numbers and facts don't seem to matter, and it seems journalist are now more interested in speculating about how all the facts that look good for Apple are actually bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithian
The loss of Forstall was a plus. He was not very well like in the Apple hierarchy.
yes. i believe he was holding iOS back, stubbornly refusing to incorporate any user-friendly elements of Android or others in the name of iOS 'purity.' he would accept direction/orders from Jobs, but probably not from Cook/Ives. so he had to go.
thus i expect iOS 7 to incorporate quite a few new user conveniences and maybe even have a 'fresher' look overall. this will be one real indication of Apple really entering the "post-Jobs" era. all the 2012 Apple products had to have had their origins while Jobs was still in control. but 2013 software and hardware will show the first major outcomes of the new team's decisions about hardware and software.
i think some of the overall negative energy about Apple - the rational part - reflects this unavoidable period of uncertainty about the new leadership team. today's earnings call won't resolve that no matter how good. we do not yet really know where they are going to take the company. for the last two years they have been busy executing - very successfully - the concepts Jobs had laid out. but from here on it's really their era.
it will be very interesting.
Maybe that's the case, but I recall the media skeptical of the first iPhone, derisive of the iPad, and "disappointed" when the next gen devices aren't radically different than the prev gen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
Please explain the price of AMZN using your thesis.
It is exactly the same. If Amazon beats expections its stock price will go up. If it does not meet expectation its price will go down.
The key there is expectations. Amazon is often expected to lose a lot of money. So if analysts have valued them on expectations of them losing $300million in a quarter and Amazon 'only' reports losses $100million their stock price will jump up nicely. Apple's share price could be based on expectations that they will make $20 billion in a quarter. Say Apple makes 'only' $18billion in profit that quarter...
Were they to report on the same day, Amazon, who reported a loss of $100million, will see its stock jump up. Apple, who reported a profit of $18billion, would see its shares drop. People would come here and complain about that (ZOMG Wall Street hates Apple! *Record* profits of $18billion and their share price drops when Failazon loses $100million and shares go up! This is price fixing and market manipulation!!! Prooff!!!). Why don't those same people complain, "Apple makes @$100b in revenues a year, Amazon makes @$75b a year. How come Amazons stock price isn't 3/4 of Apples price? Reality is Apples price is valued at more like 4x Amazons value! The answer is the same, its already built into their valuation. Amazons market cap of only $150b on $75b/a year in revenue is based on low expectations of them losing $300m a quarter. Apples valuation of $550billion+ on their $100b a year in revenue is based on them profiting $20b a quarter. If either fails or succeeds in respect to their own expectations they will go up or down accordingly.
What confuses people about Amazon is how a company that routinely loses money quarter to quarter can continue to have an increasing share value. That one is pretty easy too. A stocks valuation is based on the net present value of future expected earnings. Don't look at Amazons profits for a second- look at their revenue. Woah! $75b a year and still growing at 30% plus per year, and their market is expected to continue growing for years to come. At current rates expectation are their market will be a $1,000,000,000,000 market by 2016 (one trillion). Of that Amazon is expected to command at least 1/4, or $250billion a year. With current revenues around $75b, a profit or loss of $100million one way or the other is basically chump change and it is actually strategically planned by Amazon. Amazons model is based on them trying not to make a large profit. They reinvest everything they make back into the company and basically try to target as close to zero profit as they can and usually miss slightly one way or the other. They see their market growing tremendously, why would they sacrifice growing along with their market so they can 'report' profits and give their money to the government. They could have skyrocketing profits if they chose to stop growing. Instead they grow and continue to build more and more million square foot+ distribution centers that are the most automated in the world. Their 'dream' goal is to achieve same day shipping on anything you could want to order. If they achieve that expectations are they will have a 'Walmart' or 'Home Depot' effect- only instead of putting your mom&pop stores or small hardware stores out of business, Amazon will be driving Malls out of business. Why would I dress up, gas up, sit through traffic, shop through a limited selection at a store (if they even have in stock what I want), pay a high retail price, and drive home when I could just click online, get exactly what I want at a much lower price, and have it delivered to my home in about the same time as if I had gone out to the mall?
That reality isn't here yet. So you can take your pick. Amazon is either a company that is horrendously overvalued based on them routinely losing millions of dollars, or they are a company that is horrendously undervalued based on the fact that their growth continues to be staggering and should they ever decide to 'flip the switch' and generate profits instead of growth they'll be turning huge numbers. Which one is right? I don't know. Take your pick and either buy a ton of shares, or sell them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood
It is exactly the same. If Amazon beats expections its stock price will go up. If it does not meet expectation its price will go down.
The key there is expectations. Amazon is often expected to lose a lot of money. So if analysts have valued them on expectations of them losing $300million in a quarter and Amazon 'only' reports losses $100million their stock price will jump up nicely. Apple's share price could be based on expectations that they will make $20 billion in a quarter. Say Apple makes 'only' $18billion in profit that quarter...
Were they to report on the same day, Amazon, who reported a loss of $100million, will see its stock jump up. Apple, who reported a profit of $18billion, would see its shares drop. People would come here and complain about that (ZOMG Wall Street hates Apple! *Record* profits of $18billion and their share price drops when Failazon loses $100million and shares go up! This is price fixing and market manipulation!!! Prooff!!!). Why don't those same people complain, "Apple makes @$100b in revenues a year, Amazon makes @$75b a year. How come Amazons stock price isn't 3/4 of Apples price? Reality is Apples price is valued at more like 4x Amazons value! The answer is the same, its already built into their valuation. Amazons market cap of only $150b on $75b/a year in revenue is based on low expectations of them losing $300m a quarter. Apples valuation of $550billion+ on their $100b a year in revenue is based on them profiting $20b a quarter. If either fails or succeeds in respect to their own expectations they will go up or down accordingly.
What confuses people about Amazon is how a company that routinely loses money quarter to quarter can continue to have an increasing share value. That one is pretty easy too. A stocks valuation is based on the net present value of future expected earnings. Don't look at Amazons profits for a second- look at their revenue. Woah! $75b a year and still growing at 30% plus per year, and their market is expected to continue growing for years to come. At current rates expectation are their market will be a $1,000,000,000,000 market by 2016 (one trillion). Of that Amazon is expected to command at least 1/4, or $250billion a year. With current revenues around $75b, a profit or loss of $100million one way or the other is basically chump change and it is actually strategically planned by Amazon. Amazons model is based on them trying not to make a large profit. They reinvest everything they make back into the company and basically try to target as close to zero profit as they can and usually miss slightly one way or the other. They see their market growing tremendously, why would they sacrifice growing along with their market so they can 'report' profits and give their money to the government. They could have skyrocketing profits if they chose to stop growing. Instead they grow and continue to build more and more million square foot+ distribution centers that are the most automated in the world. Their 'dream' goal is to achieve same day shipping on anything you could want to order. If they achieve that expectations are they will have a 'Walmart' or 'Home Depot' effect- only instead of putting your mom&pop stores or small hardware stores out of business, Amazon will be driving Malls out of business. Why would I dress up, gas up, sit through traffic, shop through a limited selection at a store (if they even have in stock what I want), pay a high retail price, and drive home when I could just click online, get exactly what I want at a much lower price, and have it delivered to my home in about the same time as if I had gone out to the mall?
That reality isn't here yet. So you can take your pick. Amazon is either a company that is horrendously overvalued based on them routinely losing millions of dollars, or they are a company that is horrendously undervalued based on the fact that their growth continues to be staggering and should they ever decide to 'flip the switch' and generate profits instead of growth they'll be turning huge numbers. Which one is right? I don't know. Take your pick and either buy a ton of shares, or sell them.
oh boy have you drunk the Wal Street kool aid.
any purchase of equity based on "expectations" that are significantly beyond current performance - like Amazon - is "speculation," not "investment." in Amazon's case we are looking at an extremely example that is driven by the "greater fool" theory - i think i can get someone to pay more than i did based on hype, not actuals. this is common in the tech world of course. gullible people think it's different than other types of businesses and hope to hit a jackpot. once in a while, it really happens - like Apple - so that pulls in the imprudent. it's kinda like playing casino blackjack - in theory you can win, and the best players do, but long term most lose.
the best case scenario for Amazon is that it can become the WalMart of the web with substantial profit margins on large volume sales. the worst case is it becomes the Safeway of the web with small margins on large volume sales - which is where it's at today. given the rapidly growing ubiquity of price comparison via web shopping it is impossible to describe how Amazon can make this shift successfully. WalMart just has to beat other brick and motar competitors. but Google and many others will always be there and undercut Amazon if it tries - it's the world wide web!
that's a crummy hand to play, throw the cards in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Dear manipulators,
Get bent.
Sincerely,
Tim Cook, et. al.
They should have Eric Cartman handle the investors call..
"Screw you guys, I am going home"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr
oh boy have you drunk the Wal Street kool aid.
any purchase of equity based on "expectations" that are significantly beyond current performance - like Amazon - is "speculation," not "investment." in Amazon's case we are looking at an extremely example that is driven by the "greater fool" theory - i think i can get someone to pay more than i did based on hype, not actuals. this is common in the tech world of course. gullible people think it's different than other types of businesses and hope to hit a jackpot. once in a while, it really happens - like Apple - so that pulls in the imprudent. it's kinda like playing casino blackjack - in theory you can win, and the best players do, but long term most lose.
the best case scenario for Amazon is that it can become the WalMart of the web with substantial profit margins on large volume sales. the worst case is it becomes the Safeway of the web with small margins on large volume sales - which is where it's at today. given the rapidly growing ubiquity of price comparison via web shopping it is impossible to describe how Amazon can make this shift successfully. WalMart just has to beat other brick and motar competitors. but Google and many others will always be there and undercut Amazon if it tries - it's the world wide web!
that's a crummy hand to play, throw the cards in.
If I had drunk the cool aid I would own Amazon shares. I do not =p That doesn't mean I can't recognize cool aid for what it is made of. I agree with you that if you choose to buy Amazon you are engaging in speculation. But that's allowed. You can go gamble all your money away if you choose to as well. I can tell you the odds of many games as well but I'm probably not going to join you at the table.
I wouldn't go as far as you and say that anyone who buys Amazon shares is a fool. They are simply willing to take a risk and believe that 1) the online retail business is going to continue to grow and 2) Amazon is going to be in a position to do it better than anyone else. Amazon is never going to go for high margins. Ever. They are all about making small margings on everything sold under the sun (at least in online retail- their other businesses like cloud computing are a seperate entity). Your statement that Google and other online retailers will undercut Amazon (it's the world wide web!) shows you haven't been paying attention to what Amazon is doing nor what their strength is. Amazon is all about the delivery and the infrastructure. They actually relish online price matching more than any other company.
Google: We've found the cheapest price for this zoodle you wanted! It's $39.95
Amazon: Our price for the zoodle you wanted is $39.95
Hmmm.... I'll go with Google.
Google: Where do you live? ...... Maine
Google: When do you want it by?..... Today.
Google: The company selling it at that price is in California. We can fly it out to you NFO today for only $350 shipping.
erm... no
Google: We can do next day shipping for only $49.99!
erm... no the thing only costs 39.99
Google: We can do 3 day shipping for $19.99
No?.... anywhere from 1 week to 2 weeks for $4.99?
hmmm...
Let me check amazon.
Zoodle price $39.95
Would you like it today?.... Yes
Are you an Amazon prime member?
Yes ---> okay it will be there today.
No --> we can get it there today for $4.99
Amazon does not have that capability yet (and even they are skeptical they can actually achieve it) but they are actively and agressively building actively toward that infrastructure or as close as they can get to it). There is a world of difference between finding you the lowest price on the web and actually delivering it to you for that price or close to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr
oh boy have you drunk the Wal Street kool aid.
any purchase of equity based on "expectations" that are significantly beyond current performance - like Amazon - is "speculation," not "investment." in Amazon's case we are looking at an extremely example that is driven by the "greater fool" theory - i think i can get someone to pay more than i did based on hype, not actuals. this is common in the tech world of course. gullible people think it's different than other types of businesses and hope to hit a jackpot. once in a while, it really happens - like Apple - so that pulls in the imprudent. it's kinda like playing casino blackjack - in theory you can win, and the best players do, but long term most lose.
the best case scenario for Amazon is that it can become the WalMart of the web with substantial profit margins on large volume sales. the worst case is it becomes the Safeway of the web with small margins on large volume sales - which is where it's at today. given the rapidly growing ubiquity of price comparison via web shopping it is impossible to describe how Amazon can make this shift successfully. WalMart just has to beat other brick and motar competitors. but Google and many others will always be there and undercut Amazon if it tries - it's the world wide web!
that's a crummy hand to play, throw the cards in.
If you want 'investment' look at dividend stocks or bonds. Non-dividend paying equities ARE all about speculation.
And Amazon is more about infrastructure and technology than retail, which is why no one has (and likely won't) beat them at their own game.