Wait a minute - no retailer is better at selling things at a near loss than AMZN. Morgan Stanley tells me they will continue to be the best at selling stuff to people because well because they have that good business model. Cramer says we can't understand their model. Too complex.
WSM WMT BBY EBAY, O, - they can't compete with AMZN low margin business model.
I mean that's the genius of Bezos - sell stuff at a lower cost. Where does he get these innovative ideas?
.69 cents for a song. Wow that is pure genius. How about lowering once again the cost of the kindle? He should be president.
Just think for 15 years AMZN has been selling things at a near loss? Talk about an incredible business model. I'm sure glad Bezos included that letter from 1997 to remind us of he genius.
It's not a computer science class I felt I just walked into but a remedial business class at a junior college. Let's see $1.00 of sales and .98 cents of cost equals a whopping .02 for profit.
Investing in the future - the future of low margin retail!
I am in alternate state of reality?
"Do you have numbers on capacity utilization rates "
"Amazon added 13 fulfillment centers last year as its global revenue scaled up sharply, growing 36 percent to $12.95 billion in the fourth quarter. That gave Amazon 52 distribution centers."
So as I said before revenue volume may have been similar to when they had only about 2/3 of the capacity, but since they are/have been building new capacity the total capacity in use now is 1/3 higher than prior.
You were claiming that capacity was exactly the same as when they had only 13 fewer distribution centers which displays your ignorance about what an expansion involves even if you did not have access to the precise figures. When you expand in any business spending is usually going to be in a phase preceding optimization of that spending, obviously, and any denial of that fact usually comes down to one of two or both things, as is the case of someone like timber, 1. ignorance about the retail industry and how expansions work; 2. refusal to educate oneself (to reference data on the expansion or previous expansions) on the facts in the interest of hyping one's uneducated wild speculations based on nothing merely to promote one's short position out of fear of losses and blind self-interest.
"isn't is coincidental that all their earnings misses are happening iwth higher oil."
Yes, it is, since they've had many positive earnings surprises before when oil was going higher, too. In the past 21 quarters going back 5 years they produced 19 positive earnings surprises.
See my earlier link to this data.
"So, the same guys that couldn't predict a 17c earnings miss this qtr blah, blah..."
Back to cherry picking the low percentages cases again, I see. Well, I guess they make up for it the continuing long-term trend of producing a sum of $3.17 in positive earnings surprises from 19 of the past 21 quarters.
See chart (scroll down to near bottom of page):
"...are able to predict the next 5 years? How does that work?"
Easy. The record shows that their estimates have been generally too conservative over 90% over the long-term (19 out of 21 times). If anything, given the results from that chart--of nearly exclusively over a 5 year period, positive earnings surprises, 28% per annum in 5 year growth will prove to be as before too low an estimate, too conservative.
But they seem to get the long-term trend/direction correct. Amazon doesn't disclose precise timeframes and amounts of extraordinary spending so they have to guess during heavy investment phases which are short-term events.
"Grow earnings, of course."
So, the same guys that couldn't predict a 17c earnings miss this qtr, and couldn't predict the 3 qtrs before that, are able to predict the next 5 years? How does that work?
i guess the subject header to this email couldn't be more appropriate. "estimate of earnings growth" What happened to the estimate two years ago that AMZN would be earning $4.95 a share in 2011? what happened was they can't and wont' deliver promised earnings. They never have. 15 years in the making and they make .44 a quarter. Where are these earnings going to come from? This company is one giant pass through. buck in buck out.
"His nose blah, blah... like Pinochio"
Better learn to spell and read. The estimates are widely known to the market and can be with sufficient financial literacy read here.
Scroll down to the 27.55% per annum 5 year growth rate for earnings.
Grow earnings, of course. But then shorts never do their due diligence so your ignorance is understandable.
Scroll down to 5 year growth table and "27.55% per annum".
"Total AMZN profit since inception is less than Wal-Mart blah blah"
Which explains the difference in market caps, so what?
"So called expansion will bring no money."
Sure, that's what shorts said during the last expansion. But then profits returned to pre-expansion highs in a couple of quarters and doubled from there a few quarters after that.
"Investment in iPad blah, blah..."
What investment? A figment of a rabid short's wild imagination?
"The cloud market with HP is becoming even more competitive."
This reminds me of what shorts said about Google ebooks. When was the last time you bought one?