AMZN - Amazon.com Inc.

[Kraven]

The company is now steadily LOSING money.  I just don't get it....

 

They make it up on volume though.

[Guest valueInv]

TIME TO BUY!!!!!!!

 

They only lost $.02/share this last quarter!

 

When this company grows up & becomes a big player, they are going to earn money.

 

All the naysayers will be chagrined when this happens.  I'm going to sell all my beanie babies and parlay the profits into AMZN.

 

Hmmm...seriously.

 

The company is now steadily LOSING money.  I just don't get it....

 

Don't call it losing money. There is a more fancy business name for it - "commoditizing the complement".  ;)

[Guest valueInv]

Makes you wonder:

 

http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/25/dear-amazon-shareholders-please-wake-the-hell-up/

[ScottHall]

Makes you wonder:

 

http://venturebeat.com/2013/07/25/dear-amazon-shareholders-please-wake-the-hell-up/

 

It does not, really. The author states that publicly traded companies must hold earnings calls. That is untrue - some of this board's favorites never hold them.

[Liberty]

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/ed6a985c-70bd-11e2-85d0-00144feab49a.html#slide0

 

Piece on working conditions in an Amazon warehouse in the UK.

 

(Sorry if it's a repost)

[siddharth18]

I've got no position in AMZN but it's obvious how, in the short run, AMZN is more like an efficient charity and less like a profit-maximizing business. The company has a self-imposed mandate to sell goods at cost which translates into a blessing for consumers but a curse for the competitors. Heck, I'm sure Bezos would sell goods BELOW cost if it can ensure a swift death of many competitors at once.

 

The starry eyed stockholders of AMZN are convinced that Bezos is an infallible genius - a modern day Sam Walton - who just needs time. So here you have a company with the cheapest financing (as implied with an astronomic valuation) that is racing to build/strengthen its moat. Future is uncertain, but it's true that a strong moat will carry the company through rough waters.

 

Current stockholders have got to wonder - when will the moat-building stop and profit-making start? Will the moat be strong enough to keep consumers when the making profit actually becomes an agenda at Amazon? If, heaven forbid, revenue stops growing (or worse, drops) when margins increase - what might happen to a stock trading at 3000+ P/E multiple?

 

I'm sure a lot of shareholders have gotten smug due to the astronomical increase year-after-year that, but if things go awry (either with the company, or with Wall Street's perception) things would get very ugly, very fast.

[petec]

In fairness, *gross* margins look like they've been rising so a focus on profitability by raisiung prices might not slow revenue growth.  Not a holder and never will be at this valuation.

[Guest ajc]

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/2/ed6a985c-70bd-11e2-85d0-00144feab49a.html#slide0

 

Piece on working conditions in an Amazon warehouse in the UK.

 

(Sorry if it's a repost)

 

Thanks for posting (I especially enjoyed the comments section).

 

Worked in one of these near London in the past - tough work, but rewarding for the best who end up making it (I prefer to get others to do the work for me, so let's just say I didn't qualify!) and one amazingly & ruthlessly efficient place.

 

Not buying all that bitching though, given that I've been there and done that (no free t-shirt - who would've guessed?).

Those old guys at the Lea Hall Miners’ "Welfare" Centre and Social Club are just something else - an awesome example of how complaining for its own sake is sometimes the de facto national sport in this part of the world.

[bargainman]

I've got no position in AMZN but it's obvious how, in the short run, AMZN is more like an efficient charity and less like a profit-maximizing business. The company has a self-imposed mandate to sell goods at cost which translates into a blessing for consumers but a curse for the competitors. Heck, I'm sure Bezos would sell goods BELOW cost if it can ensure a swift death of many competitors at once.

 

Bezos had a letter refuting this charity claim:

 

http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/amazon-ceo-bezos-annual-letter-shareholders/

[LC]

I don't think Amazon is a charity...I think they just realize that winning the retail business is a lot easier by undercutting everyone and weaning everyone off big-boxes by offering great shipping options.

 

Would I love to own Amazon? Absolutely. In a heartbeat. I think their moat is probably like the 5th layer of hell.

 

At this price? Not quite.

[siddharth18]

I've got no position in AMZN but it's obvious how, in the short run, AMZN is more like an efficient charity and less like a profit-maximizing business. The company has a self-imposed mandate to sell goods at cost which translates into a blessing for consumers but a curse for the competitors. Heck, I'm sure Bezos would sell goods BELOW cost if it can ensure a swift death of many competitors at once.

 

Bezos had a letter refuting this charity claim:

 

http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/amazon-ceo-bezos-annual-letter-shareholders/

 

Yeah. He's convinced he can pull this off with a long enough horizon. Guess time will tell, although I must say he's a very very shrewd man and if I was forced to guess, I'd say he will be much ahead in 10 years than he is now. I would never dare bet against him - he understands exactly what he needs to do and what he needn't, that is - maintain a long term horizon and treat market (and by extension, short term AMZN holders) as his servant, not as his master.

 

 

I don't think Amazon is a charity...I think they just realize that winning the retail business is a lot easier by undercutting everyone and weaning everyone off big-boxes by offering great shipping options.

 

Would I love to own Amazon? Absolutely. In a heartbeat. I think their moat is probably like the 5th layer of hell.

 

At this price? Not quite.

 

It isn't. It's just that it seems like one, superficially and in the short term. I'd love to be Bezos' partner too, but only on fair terms. The problem right now for me is - AMZN doesn't appear like a screaming buy unless I justify using radical and extreme assumptions that may or may not materialize.

 

When you see Buffett praising Bezos (and not just in that interview, but back in 2003 when Amazon accounted for stock options as an expense) he's wishing inside to invest in him or someone like him with an unrelenting pursuit to long term success.

[Guest valueInv]

I've got no position in AMZN but it's obvious how, in the short run, AMZN is more like an efficient charity and less like a profit-maximizing business. The company has a self-imposed mandate to sell goods at cost which translates into a blessing for consumers but a curse for the competitors. Heck, I'm sure Bezos would sell goods BELOW cost if it can ensure a swift death of many competitors at once.

 

Bezos had a letter refuting this charity claim:

 

http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/amazon-ceo-bezos-annual-letter-shareholders/

 

That is nothing but a sales pitch from the CEO. His competitors are far bigger than him and have more cash than him. If he tries that, Amazon will, starve out far before his competitors do. The more areas he tries that in, the more he quickly he will burn cash.

[TwoCitiesCapital]

I don't think Amazon is a charity...I think they just realize that winning the retail business is a lot easier by undercutting everyone and weaning everyone off big-boxes by offering great shipping options.

 

Would I love to own Amazon? Absolutely. In a heartbeat. I think their moat is probably like the 5th layer of hell.

 

At this price? Not quite.

 

I disagree. Take Amazon's cash flow from operations and subtract out CapEx and acquisitions (both necessary for its continued growth and competitiveness) and you'll find that Amazon has "made" less than $10 billion in the last 10 years on a cumulative basis. A company that has only made $10 billion cumulatively over the last 10 years doesn't deserve to trade at $137 billion or anywhere near it. Amazon is a charity...one the has promised outsized profits for the last 10 years for long term shareholders. Funny thing is that people still buy this after 10 years and dont seem to realize that large profits will never materialize due to higher SG&A, COGS, and CapEx to expand into business lines that they operate at large losses or razor thin profits.

 

Lastly, one should question the strength of a moat that is predicated on undercutting competition. The moment someone else comes along with a lower price is the moment that moat is gone. I shop at Amazon because its cheap and convenient.  If someone else were more convenient or more cheap, I'd switch in a heartbeat.

 

[DTEJD1997]

Hey all:

 

I am not that impressed with AMZN's business.

 

How many huge businesses were built selling dollar bills for $.96?  A ton of them were, until they lost the easy financing/equity.  AMZN's losses are being subsidized by an extremely generous valuation of their equity.

 

The other thing is a lot of the jobs they have created are of questionable quality.  There have been many expository articles about conditions in their distribution warehouses.  Extremely difficult conditions, extremely low pay.

 

If AMZN ever has to raise their prices, how much of their sales will they lose?

 

Is the street going to allow them to lose money/break even forever?

 

If they raise prices will someone else come in and be the next AMZN?

 

 

[LC]

I don't think Amazon is a charity...I think they just realize that winning the retail business is a lot easier by undercutting everyone and weaning everyone off big-boxes by offering great shipping options.

 

Would I love to own Amazon? Absolutely. In a heartbeat. I think their moat is probably like the 5th layer of hell.

 

At this price? Not quite.

 

I disagree. Take Amazon's cash flow from operations and subtract out CapEx and acquisitions (both necessary for its continued growth and competitiveness) and you'll find that Amazon has "made" less than $10 billion in the last 10 years on a cumulative basis. A company that has only made $10 billion cumulatively over the last 10 years doesn't deserve to trade at $137 billion or anywhere near it. Amazon is a charity...one the has promised outsized profits for the last 10 years for long term shareholders. Funny thing is that people still buy this after 10 years and dont seem to realize that large profits will never materialize due to higher SG&A, COGS, and CapEx to expand into business lines that they operate at large losses or razor thin profits.

 

Lastly, one should question the strength of a moat that is predicated on undercutting competition. The moment someone else comes along with a lower price is the moment that moat is gone. I shop at Amazon because its cheap and convenient.  If someone else were more convenient or more cheap, I'd switch in a heartbeat.

Hold on now, if ABC corp made $1b/year over 10 years would that company be a charity? In my eyes it wouldn't.

 

Valuation is a different beast. I don't buy into "promises" of anything. Do I think Amazon should trade at such a high multiple? No, I don't. That's why I don't own any. At a (much) lower price I would love to own this company.

 

Let's turn to the moat. We both agree they compete on cost and convenience. They offer the best value in that regards. But yes I agree most shoppers will go elsewhere if another company can best them in this value proposition.

 

But what are the chances of that happening? Can WalMart do it? Costo? Sears? How much money would it take to set up shop and put Amazon out of business?

[NewbieD]

I disagree. Take Amazon's cash flow from operations and subtract out CapEx and acquisitions (both necessary for its continued growth and competitiveness) and you'll find that Amazon has "made" less than $10 billion in the last 10 years on a cumulative basis. A company that has only made $10 billion cumulatively over the last 10 years doesn't deserve to trade at $137 billion or anywhere near it. ..

 

I don't quite follow this. Why not count the aquisitions and CapEx (i.e. Book Value) in the valuation? Of course investments could be made at high prices relative to intrinsic value, but they shouldn't be totally worthless. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

I agree AMZN is hard to value because of the uncertainty in their profit making ability. But on the other hand they are trying to occupy a huge niche (basically to be #1 choice for all retail). To do this they have to be the low cost provider, which is why they are sacrificing all profits now to build a supremely efficient retail machine across more and more of the globe. Nothing wrong with that strategy IMO. Once the machine is efficient enough their gap on competitors could be big enough that they can make decent margins from a huge customer base. The thing to argue IMO is if they are doing it well and quickly enough for their stock price to be reasonable. And how hard it is to recreate their infrastructure / customer relationships.

 

If the rules of the stockmarket were that you had to invest in one non-holding company and hold it for at least 50 years I'd probably buy AMZN or GOOG just because they seem to be on the path to becoming low-cost providers for huge niches.

[Guest ajc]

Hey all:

 

I am not that impressed with AMZN's business.

 

How many huge businesses were built selling dollar bills for $.96?  A ton of them were, until they lost the easy financing/equity.  AMZN's losses are being subsidized by an extremely generous valuation of their equity.

 

The other thing is a lot of the jobs they have created are of questionable quality.  There have been many expository articles about conditions in their distribution warehouses.  Extremely difficult conditions, extremely low pay.

 

If AMZN ever has to raise their prices, how much of their sales will they lose?

 

Is the street going to allow them to lose money/break even forever?

 

If they raise prices will someone else come in and be the next AMZN?

 

You might end up being right, and just for the sake of disclosure I'd have to say that I'd only think about buying AMZN if it went down to its 8 times P/B ratio like it did in 2008 (and hopefully it goes even lower) and even then I'd want a clearer view than I have now.

So at these prices I'd have to agree that it's definitely a swing-and-hope stock, to my mind anyway.

 

However, having worked in their warehouses before, I think the 'modern day slavery' meme that certain journalists are pushing is genuinely being overplayed and that the place is just really, really tough but if you make it onto the permanent roster then the rewards are good.

As far as I'm aware, Amazon is totally upfront about all that and to me it's just a case of the Asian work ethic making its way across the ocean like it eventually had to.

 

Bottom line is, you can take it or leave it but there are a billion Chinese, Indians and so on who would do it in pretty much any industry and so in my opinion this is going to become more and more common and the fact that Amazon happen to be the hardest-driving Western corporation who're doing it, is not such a big deal I think as much as it is a sign that they're leading the field in terms of human productivity.

 

One thing your post made me wonder about was their moat and competition. My experience has been that their warehouses are the most efficient of any business out there, because that is their thing whereas say WalMart have huge distribution centers but the store sort of always has to be the top priority because that's where they interact with the customer. In that respect then, I'm unsure that anyone could beat them at the warehouse game - maybe come pretty close, but beating them would take some doing I figure.

 

Anyway, my thought was whether Amazon compares more to UPS and FedEx than a WalMart or whoever else and what that means in terms of the retail business model and industry dynamics going foward?

No ideas right now as to what the answer might be, but that's a bulb that kind of went off for me while I was reading your post.

[NewbieD]

 

Let's turn to the moat. We both agree they compete on cost and convenience. They offer the best value in that regards. But yes I agree most shoppers will go elsewhere if another company can best them in this value proposition.

 

 

I think in the book business they are doing well on the convenience part. Also there is little incentive from Authors for low prices, and AMZN's cut is only 30% for a huge distribution. The customers have a very convenient way to shop books, even if it's not supercheap. Here I think their scale is most valuable.

 

Books/media only seems to be about 30% of their revenue though, if I read their statements right.

 

[DTEJD1997]

 

 

However, having worked in their warehouses before, I think the 'modern day slavery' meme that certain journalists are pushing is genuinely being overplayed and that the place is just really, really tough but if you make it onto the permanent roster then the rewards are good.

As far as I'm aware, Amazon is totally upfront about all that and to me it's just a case of the Asian work ethic making its way across the ocean like it eventually had to.

 

Bottom line is, you can take it or leave it but there are a billion Chinese, Indians and so on who would do it in pretty much any industry and so in my opinion this is going to become more and more common and the fact that Amazon happen to be the hardest-driving Western corporation who're doing it, is not such a big deal I think as much as it is a sign that they're leading the field in terms of human productivity.

 

One thing your post made me wonder about was their moat and competition. My experience has been that their warehouses are the most efficient of any business out there, because that is their thing whereas say WalMart have huge distribution centers but the store sort of always has to be the top priority because that's where they interact with the customer. In that respect then, I'm unsure that anyone could beat them at the warehouse game - maybe come pretty close, but beating them would take some doing I figure.

 

Well, I think most of the authors meant to suggest that the work practices, while not being illegal, were not what we would expect in a "Western" society.  I don't think anybody has a problem with workers working hard, that is what needs to be done.  However, how hard is hard?  Some of problems that were highlighted were switching up hours, so people didn't have regular hours.  Poor physical conditions, think excess heat, inadequate ventilation, insufficient bathroom breaks, etc.  Another problem was virtually impossible pull quotas.  Quotas would also go up over time.

 

I'm sure some of the complaints were "sour grapes", but there were numerous articles highlighting the same problems.  That indicates to me that the problems are pervasive.

 

Do you want to build a business that "squeezes it's workers HARDER than the competition?"  Amazon's competitive advantage is that they pay their workers the lowest and work them the hardest?  If that is the case, I think that is a VERY shallow moat.  Who is to say that company XYZ won't decide to challenge AMZN and relocate it's warehouses to economically depressed areas (Flint MI) where there are tons of desperate workers that they take advantage of and squeeze even harder?

 

Is the destiny of the USA to race to the bottom to join other less developed countries?  That the situation for workers gets progressively worse as time progresses?  If that is the case, I think we are headed in the wrong direction.

 

In my opinion, a strong competitive advantage would be based off of strong intellectual capital (GOOG, AAPL), a good brand & advertising (KO), superior manufacturing (Mercedes) or something that is not easily replicated.  Anybody can squeeze their employees, it is much harder to build a sustainable competitive edge.

 

I just don't see a lot of with AMZN, especially at these valuation levels.

 

[Guest ajc]

@DTEJD1997

 

I hope you're right but my hardcore inner cynic says that labor-intensive jobs will become more and more like this until, perhaps the power of unions start to rise again and there's some kind of major levelling out.

In reality though, the world has never had close to this much economic competition in its entire history which creates amazing opportunities but also presents some huge challenges and might require some really big changes and sacrifices.

 

It's tough when the guy just on the other side of the ocean from you is working people 80 hours a week with very few benefits and only a living wage. Is it realistic to think that every working American can enjoy the same type of work environment they've had for the last 70 years after Europe had been completely demolished by WW2 and Asia hadn't risen yet?

 

My reaction to that is probably not.

I'd say that decades from now you'll find a greater percentage of unskilled American workers having to work their tails off just to survive because there's all sorts of countries that still need to raise their living standards off of very low bases and can therefore undercut most developed nations.

Either that or get ready for some sort of massive welfare state I think.

 

With any luck, I'll be dead wrong on this but I don't think that America progressing and making huge advances and still being a global market leader as well as having more and more really tough jobs like these at the lower-end are in any way mutually exclusive.

So all I'm saying, is that this isn't something I would completely rule out in the years ahead.

 

I agree with you that at these levels AMZN looks like its priced almost for perfection, but on the other hand regarding the moat issue I do think that maybe in retail - which obviously doesn't have great economics generally - it might be necessary to have the CEO, the brand, the advertising, the intellectual capital and the employees who work like the folks at Foxconn in order to stay at the head of the global pack (and I think I might be able to make a reasonably strong argument that this is basically what Jeff Bezos and the management and employees over at Amazon are doing).

 

Whether they can be disrupted or not and how easily is a somewhat different aspect of the moat question to be sure, but purely on the business efficiency side my take is that they are probably the best at what they do.

 

Just my opinion on the matter (and then again, maybe the robot company they bought works out and the whole working conditions question becomes moot).

 

 

[LC]

 

Let's turn to the moat. We both agree they compete on cost and convenience. They offer the best value in that regards. But yes I agree most shoppers will go elsewhere if another company can best them in this value proposition.

 

 

I think in the book business they are doing well on the convenience part. Also there is little incentive from Authors for low prices, and AMZN's cut is only 30% for a huge distribution. The customers have a very convenient way to shop books, even if it's not supercheap. Here I think their scale is most valuable.

 

Books/media only seems to be about 30% of their revenue though, if I read their statements right.

I don't see how anyone else will be able to undercut Amazon on a national level. The only way for another retailer to compete is to attack Amazon's shipping costs. If you consider the various costs which a big box neighborhood retailer incurs vs. a warehouse distribution + FedEx delivery system, I don't see how the big boxes can compete.

 

Remember too, shippers must love Amazon. With all the business that Amazon sends, they are able to maximize any operating leverage they have in their business model.

 

It reminds me of the mental model from Intel. intel's fabs have to operate at something like 95+% capacity in order for them to turn a profit. A 5billion dollar fab has a ton of operating leverage built into that cost.

 

I think the same goes for shippers. You have an entire global distribution system, there is tons of operating leverage. And you want to maximize that utilization. Think of why the US post office is failing. Because they don't have the utilization in some of the absurdly small towns to justify the capital spent on distribution, staffing (which is another issue, I admit), etc.

 

If I am FedEx, I'll charge Amazon at cost to ship and just make my profit on everything on top of their business!

[DTEJD1997]

@DTEJD1997

 

I hope you're right but my hardcore inner cynic says that labor-intensive jobs will become more and more like this until, perhaps the power of unions start to rise again and there's some kind of major levelling out.

In reality though, the world has never had close to this much economic competition in its entire history which creates amazing opportunities but also presents some huge challenges and might require some really big changes and sacrifices.

 

AJC I most sincerely hope I am right too, but I am probably not.  It is not just AMZN that is having a tremendous disruptive influence.  Industry & profession has fallen.  I am originally from Detroit, and I've seen first hand the hollowing out of American industry.  As I am now middleaged, I can now understand why my grandparents and parents were so sad of what happened in Detroit.  The blame can be laid at the feet of MANY different actors, management, owners, workers, and government.  Some of the pain & disruption can simply NOT be avoided.  However, it seems to me, that a lot of could have been minimized or postponed for long periods of time.  Some of it never needed to happen...

 

Of course, this is a thread regarding AMZN.  They may have a viable business (most likely).  Do they have a good business?  remains to be seen...Do they have a great business model?  I am highly skeptical.

 

The problem is that the company has a market cap of $140BB, a stock price of $305/share and NO P/E.  The company also has sales of $67BB. 

 

Think of this...Is AMZN going to double or triple their sales in the next decade?  I think that their future sales are going to get tougher & tougher to grow.  All the easy customers have likely been acquired.  Even if AMZN does double or triple their sales, what good is it if they make no money on them?

 

I am going to STRONGLY suggest that if they can't money selling $67BB, they might never make money.

 

If they raise margins and sales growth stalls significantly OR EVEN GOES DOWN, what is that going to do to their valuation levels?  Is the Street going to accord AMZN a 45 EV/EBIDTA ratio?  Maybe, but I doubt it.  In fact, you could make an argument that if AMZN growth slows down, EV/EBIDTA might go down to 12 or even 10.

 

I never thought AMZN would ever attain these levels, so I've been wrong many times before.

 

When it comes time to investing serious money, why take the risk?  I'll find & invest in companies selling for low single digit EV/EBIDTA ratios...The closer to 1, the better! :)

[ItsAValueTrap]

Maybe you should try shopping online more.  There are a lot of individuals selling new stuff on eBay.  Their prices are often lower than those of bricks & mortar stores.

 

All the easy customers have likely been acquired.

I live in Canada and see that America is way ahead of Canada in terms of online shopping.  I consistently see lower prices in the US for many items.  For example, I got hooked on JLab earbuds because I won an Amazon US gift certificate.  When I bought my second pair from amazon.ca, the price was significantly higher than amazon.com.

 

Amazon has a lot of market share to gain.  There's a lot of categories that they haven't dominated yet like video/photo equipment (competing against bhphotovideo.com) and computer parts (newegg.com).

 

Industry & profession has fallen.

There are parts of American industry that work extremely well.  Online shopping is one of them.  I would buy things from bhphotovideo.com because they are superior to Canadian online retailers... even though the brokerage fees can be costly.

 

The American television industry is also very good.  Canada has many TV shows where two thirds of the cost is subsidized by the government.  (That is a massive, massive margin advantage.)  Yet Canadian TV shows rarely make the top 10 in Canada.  Canadian TV networks try to air as little Canadian content as possible (every one of them).

 

The US has some serious economic advantages over the rest of the world.

[bargainman]

Take a look at the virtuous cycle diagram:

 

http://blog.seattlepi.com/amazon/2008/12/10/amazon-talks-strategy-international-growth/

 

This is what it comes down to.  Amazon is going for scale in every market it goes after.  When it achieves it, it has a big long term advantage over others since it can keep driving costs down more than anyone else can.

[Guest ajc]

@DTEJD1997

 

I hope you're right too. What you said about seeming like a step in the wrong direction is completely on point, to my mind anyway.

I do wonder though, what disruptive influences the never-before-seen economies of scale that China (and probably India) bring in the future will have on various US multinationals and other national economies globally.

 

Also, I agree that Amazon has no uncrossable moat. Their warehouses and distribution might be world-beating, but to me the entire online retail industry is based only on price and speed.

So, speed-wise AMZN leads now but what if UPS or FedEx went to some big electronic manufacturers (Sony, Samsung, etc, etc) and struck a deal?

 

Could they offer deals and speed that were competitive? I'm not saying it's guaranteed, but it's not impossible either and maybe they could discount the goods enough to take a day or two extra?

To me, I don't understand that probability well enough and so I can't say that AMZN has a strong enough moat there.

 

Another aspect I'm not knowledgeable enough about is online books. What's stopping a bunch of publishers or authors or eBay or whoever setting up booksandmedia.com and using their rights over the intellectual property to take market share?

I don't know enough to answer that, but I don't think the possibility is zero.

When you're dealing with nothing more than sending some data to a device in exchange for a fee - which any tech-savvy company can do - then again, I'd say I'm not convinced that AMZN has a strong moat for e-books, e-periodicals, etc.

 

What would just 2 disruptions like that do to Amazon? Not sure, but my guess is it wouldn't be pretty and to me those don't seem to be out-of-this-world can't-ever-happen ideas.

 

Anyway, what I'm saying basically is that I'm in real agreement with you that Amazon at this stage could still be killed and if it drops then that money could be dead for quite some time so Lancashire, Coca Cola, Wells Fargo and a bunch of others look like far better value buys at this time at least to my inexpert and inexperienced online retailing eye.

 

Thanks for the perspective, it's helped me think about the company in a much more conservative and realistic way.