Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Amazon.com Inc. Message Board

  • sheezymcneezy sheezymcneezy Aug 11, 2009 9:13 AM Flag

    neme that's some buyback you keep preaching.

    YOU SAID:

    ""Wrong. They spent some of their FCF to buy back shares in the 40s. Please read the SEC filings before you make false statements. Rating :
    (No ratings)Rate it: nemesis_edi...

    Male
    Tokyo/Los A...

    View Messages

    Ignore User

    Report Abuse""

    ---------------------


    10mil+ increase in shares year over year. go back further its more.


    Three Months Ended
    June 30, Six Months Ended
    June 30,
    2008 2007 2008 2007

    Weighted average shares used in computation of earnings per share:

    Basic
    420 412 419 412

    Diluted
    430 423 428 421


    --------------------


    Three Months Ended
    June 30, Six Months Ended
    June 30,
    2009 2008 2009 2008


    Weighted average shares used in computation of earnings per share:

    Basic
    431 420 430 419

    Diluted
    440 430 438 428

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Actually, Amazon's record on managing dilution compares favorably to other companies. What is your point?

      Shares
      (in millions)
      ______ 2005 __2008_ Dilution
      Amazon 430 __ 440 __ 1%
      Apple __ 857 __ 902 __ 5%

    • >do you always take the 1% minority reason and ignore the 99% primary reason

      You must use the "new" math to calculate your percentage. Amazon has spent $billions buying back stock.

      http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20060828&slug=webamazon28

      How does that come to 1%?

    • >do you always take the 1% minority reason and ignore the 99% primary reason

      Do you always make up what is the 1% and what is the 99%? Sounds like a rigged deal for anyone whose view your bias doesn't agree with.

    • "do you always take the 1% minority reason and ignore the 99% primary reason for the sole purpose of justifying your ridiculous explanations and speculations?"

      Yes, he does.

    • "Why does it need to be the "sole" purpose?"

      do you always take the 1% minority reason and ignore the 99% primary reason for the sole purpose of justifying your ridiculous explanations and speculations?

      if you go to work and your reason for working is 99% to earn a living and 1% to get out of the house, do you base your entire argument on "im going to work to get out of the house, even though the primary reason is to not starve or be homeless"

      its absurd your posts are utter absurdy. to even speculate that amazon gives a flying crap about an extra 2mil shares in dilution that they have to arrange a PR flashy buyback that wont even dent dilution, is ABSURD.

      this conversation is over. if i want to take to a ignorant, non-english speaking companion, ill talk to my puppy.

      im done replying to this nonsense. i lose more braincells debating with you than i do drinking alchohol.

    • >if the buyback's sole purpose is to cushion the dilution

      Why does it need to be the "sole" purpose?

      >why would they dilute 10mil shares the other day to buy zappos.

      Because they did the equivalent of buying back those shares for under $40 and now they've bought Zappos when the shares were over $80. Sounds better than "diluting" cash at that amount.

    • "No, it's pretty straight-forward. Over the years they have bought back shares thanks to their FCF. That has helped manage dilution. Dilution is at a pretty normal level then. Don't know how it could be made any clearer to you."

      yes yes, i got it retard. their buyback cushions the dilution of 10mil shares per year, which would be more without the buyback, and is enabled via their FCF (paying vendors late) not their actually profits.

      i still asked you a question. if the buyback's sole purpose is to cushion the dilution, and that is such a worry for management, then why would they dilute 10mil shares the other day to buy zappos.

      it would completely defeat your entire story on buyback to cushion dilution. because you dont cushion dilution, only to dilute massively again through a small takeover.

      neme your statements make about as much sense as a 5 year old child speculating on where babys come from.

    • No, it's pretty straight-forward. Over the years they have bought back shares thanks to their FCF. That has helped manage dilution. Dilution is at a pretty normal level then. Don't know how it could be made any clearer to you.

    • "If you cannot dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS"

      Very nice, mind if I borrow that once in a while?

      From a political point of view I think it fair to say that most people would be hesitant to label most politician as brilliant in fact quite the antithesis, I am confounded as to how these political buffoons remain in power for decades. You'd think there are enough intelligent voters to cut through the BS, but perhaps Term Limits for Congress should be top of the agenda.

    • i dont know why he continues responding. know hes alleging the buyback is not to actually buyback stock, but to smooth the transition of the dilution.

      boy i thought i saw everything, heard everything, but this one takes the cake of one of the dumbest explanations of a buyback.

      so neme tell us, is amazon going to use the little cash they have to smooth over the Zappos 10mil shares in new dilution?

      according to you, buybacks can serve a new purpose! it can now be used to transition dilution!!

      you know when somethings negative you can just be honest and say its negative. you dont have to ommit things and paint them positive as well.

      because it hurts your cause and shows how crooked and misleading you are.

      any buyback that isnt used to reduce shares, has foul motives. and you can allege its for transitioning dilution, but im going to say its for PR reasons to get the stock up.

    • View More Messages
 
AMZN
427.63-4.00(-0.93%)May 22 4:00 PMEDT