PE is based on 4 qtrs trailing or foward looking , not one qtr. So the 9 cents loss must have replaced a bigger loss last year to get net 4 qtrs earnings into the black.
sound like alot of the new account "growth" could be spam type stuff. Some of the new accounts are not real people or multiple accounts of one person, sort of like multi ID yahoo boards. You get the drift
taking down numbers hasn't mattered for a couple to 3 years now in AMZN on the bottom line, as long as they feed it more speculative printing money on HFT programming. There's your PHD's at the Fed.
3 messages so far saying the same thing: interesting. What's the over/under on how many messages from you today basically saying the same thing: parabola cover/ and you were right for the last two months? I say 15 messages.
yeah, I see it's "all the other dumb idiot shorts" right and not yourself: who expected a crash last year didn't you? And you don't even know what side of the market I'm on. You just assume. You're a complete idiot pal.
"Shooting the messenger for delivering a meesage that you dont like doez not change the dynamics of the underlying message "
Except two things Mr. Defensive: I didn't shoot the messenger with my response, and you have "informed" the board here saying the same thing over an over. All's anyone has to do is look at the volume of you posts and what they say: they say the same thing. So it appears to me you have more of a motive than to merely "inform." I don't care if you do or don't, and like or dislike it. Just stating what you have been doing. Sort of like when you said the stock would crash all into the end of last year. Was to "inform" also? what makes you such an expert? More of an idiot.
"Didnt mean to scare you with that 480 number."
sure you did. Otherwise, you wouldn't be posting, saying the same thing, 100's of times, when one post gets your message across. Am I right? You betcha.
not that is matters right now, but one might take a counter stance to the long run investment in AMZN based on what you say: yes, $17 billion is not a small deal? but the question is : why has AMZN not been able to get "scale" to the bottom line as they increased sales to $70 billion +? 5 years ago, that was the story analysts were implying as sales increased. Sure ,some is spending initiatives, but many of those are capitalized, blance sheet items: cash to PPE, or cash to equipment) etc, and they still have negative real cash flow. Of course the consumer likes AMZN, they get more out of them then they have to pay for their services, in order for AMZN to show those $17 billion numbers. But's it's still,as an investor, not gonna be able to increase equity, that can used to pay you in the future. It's all in apprecation of the stock on a moving target: which is now qtrs upon qtrs of negative cash flow and earnings, while the stock goes parabolic. So an investor is relying on that condtion continuing. As an investor, you'd like to see them start to build up stockholder equity at some point. For a trader, it's different: they'll chase it until the stock doesn't work going up anymore: two different scenarios.
I agree, if someone says a 10 % is no bigdeal, then that's not good to get capitualiton, it must go much higher then to destroy all the shorts, and the new ones coming in. That's why I said to that guy who said that 10 % is no big deal. Well, if it isn't, it will go up until it is a big deal to hurting shorts until they capitulate.
you're full of #$%$. You were all over the board yesterday before the earings hit saying how you were short: you might be hedged: but you are lost value in your postion last night after the reaction starting at 4 pm. You're not "even" in AMZN. That's a bogus statement. So your even now that it went up, and would have been up big if it went down? that's trading in la la la land pal.
and it is a big deal as there's many people on this board who have been short AMZN for much more than just the 10 % or so up move today on "valuation" rationales that don't work. So it' has and gonna be a big deal as AMZN powers higher. Alot of these people didn't see or don't remember what a late 1999-early 2000 type market did to valuations, no matter what. It was/is about the overabundance of liquidity and also, the momo's chasing performance to keep up with the indexes.
but if you were really short, you would WANT that to happen? In other words, have a short capitulation? What you said doesn't make sense if you wanted the trend to change.
and it didn't even take an AAPL type of earings bull market for the company to do it: merely sales expansion. That's spectacular in itself as well.
this market couldn't care less about any red flags, especially AMZN stock.
and Bob Olstein is very good with this stuff. But AMZN defys all bears. its tried and proven in that way.