Umm, you mean like how you (wrongly) predicted that the Google Books project was supposed to "absolutely" give them a monopoly on e-books but ended up a big fat flop?
So according to idiot short logic, Amazon collecting more taxes has the opposite effect of causing people not to shop at Amazon. Another great example demonstrating how idiot shorts constantly shoot themselves in the foot with their specious arguments.
This dope techstrategy should change his handle to techchallegnedstrategy. If he had a fleet of drones he says you could only use them to fly from very distant distribution points for each order making it prohibitively costly. His scenario also demonstrates his lack of retail logistics strategy, no wonder he can't fathom 21st century retail basics. Here is a much more plausible scenario I just read about:
" You could, for one example, have the autonomous robots in the factor loading packages into self-driving trucks that transport the packages on highways to just outside the city limits. Then once they’ve covered the longer haul from the fulfillment center to just outside the city the top of the truck opens and the delivery drones come out to fly to the final destinations. This would focus the drones on the notoriously expensive “last mile problem” of transportation, and would mean you don’t need thousands of drones making a redundant journey from warehouse to city limits."
This idiot short must not be familiar with the SEC filings where it shows that last year 43% of Amazon's revenue came from International where Amazon has always collected sales tax. If the business model was to "help avoid sales tax" then this figure should be 0%.
Customers were supposed to pay sales tax themselves and when local government budgets became too bloated and the size of online revenues hit their radar they suddenly decided to spin a different interpretation of existing laws.
Funny. I was under the impression that much if not most of Amazon's business was global where everyone always from the start paid taxes. The law stipulated conditions under which Amazon did not have to collect taxes. Why would you expect them to have done otherwise?
You don't get what abstract because you don't understand that GAAP profit is not cash. You can't necessarily spend it. Amazon has many millions of dollars of cash subtracted from GAAP profit for non-cash charges such as stock-based compensation. You can't pay a supplier with GAAP profit that isn't necessarily cash by claiming well it is an investors abstract standard of some sort. But you can always pay him in cash.
Suppliers don't care about whether you have GAAP profit or not. They do care if you can pay them in cash, though. What is your standard may not matter to the next investor. Standards can be arbitrary or misused in any case. greg brought up FCF in the context of whether Amazon had money to invest in expansion and research, not whether it complied with some kind of valuation standard.
Except future generation drones may hit other things as much as say UPS trucks do. Moore's Law. Avoidance systems current posters here know about are much too costly to be used, and probably too primitive. But a few generations from now, which is the time frame we are talking about this will be far different from what we can see in use now.
Actually, WS is rewarding it for aggressively investing in strong growth. Or in other words not rewarding as much other companies who may have profits but who can not seem to find opportunities for growth.
Cheap financing is always welcome if your opportunities are large enough. We're the rates the most favorable for companies in many years? You shouldn't be held to spend according to what your previous FCF was.
People don't necessarily like buying things below cost. I'm sure 99.9% of them have no idea what the cost was.
Your belief that an earnings figure at a certain point in time should matter as much to others is the opposite of the truth. it simply does not.
You sound jealous of Bezos and of Amazon investors to me. If they do not subscribe to your valuation thesis, why else would it be any skin off your nose? Unless you shorted. But then that would be your own damned fault and folly, wouldn't it? Why blame others?
I think kenji is expecting Charlie Rose to use the term free cash flow instead of profits. He thinks that the layman watching a TV show will quibble about what the difference between the two is. Also, he does not understand that while the former can be spent the latter is some abstract figure (GAAP) all of which may or may not be able to spent.
I think it is a requirement of being an Amazon short. To be in their littl club, you have to believe that companies can only spend GAAP paper profits (is not exactly what they have in actual cash, but an abstract figure on paper) or that none of the many companies that post GAAP profits also have little and even highly negative free cash flow.
Just saw an article by a guy who compared the cost of moving goods around mainly via airplane. He could not figure out that in the future Amazon will have many distribution centers located very near where customers live. Pretty funny. Was he one of your shills? Was he you?
You must be thinking of legacy generation drones. These are going to be a few generations hence so the technology and conditions will be a lot different by then. But then Amazon shorts have always lagged way behind the curve in such matters.
Are you sure? None of the UPS, UPO or FedEx trucks that had accidents ever made much news, let alone the guy that used to toss the newspaper to the porch.
OK, I just did as you asked. Seems pretty easy to me if it is flying above the tree line until it descends straight down to the delivery spot. What's so hard about it given the state of modern remote navigation systems?
Pre-surveyed? Why so? My newspaper guy never had such a stipulation.
Actually, Amazon's advantage comes from playing one off against the other. You should read the recent book about Amazon. One part discusses how they shifted the flow of packages through one vendor for a day or two until that party gave in and cried uncle in the negotiations giving Amazon the concessions they had originally demanded.