Can Anyone Explain Amazon's Stock Prices for Me?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by AzCatFan, Jul 25, 2013.

  1. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,603
    Likes Received:
    2,456
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,286
    Have you ever bought several items from that place? That claim some of them are in-stock and then they charge you separate shipping for each item on your order.

    Now as far as their stock price, I don't know what's up with that but their business model sucks. I'll never buy from them again.
  2. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,666
    Likes Received:
    368
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,446
    I think you are engaging in sophistry here.
  3. Jaggator
    Offline

    Jaggator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    74,828
    Likes Received:
    3,382
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,203
    Thank you...Word of the day! :wink:

    soph·is·try (sf-str)
    n. pl. soph·is·tries
    1. Plausible but fallacious argumentation.
    2. A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument.
  4. urg8rbait
    Offline

    urg8rbait Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +2
    I think you just can't refute what I'm saying.
  5. rounds
    Offline

    rounds New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,981
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +19
    Best in category.
    Buy low, sell high???
  6. akaijenkins1
    Offline

    akaijenkins1 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    554
    Likes Received:
    29
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Oakland, CA
    Ratings Received:
    +51
    “It was the best third quarter since inception but they continued to invest in infrastructure at the expense of profit. At some point they’ve got to start showing some profits. That’s where the question is.”

    I think, in the long run, the infrastructure will reach a level sufficient enough to significantly dial back that number and drastically increase profit. That's the simple version.

    And I must say, Amazon has proven that they know a thing or two about investing in infrastructure. The Kindle is a perfect example: as the product has gotten better, the price has dropped significantly, forcing the entire industry to follow suit (and too late at that). This is something people thought was nuts and Apple would never consider, yet look at the end result: the Kindle is THE platform for ebook commerce and ebook commerce is an industry that has a legitimate and extensive future. The Kindle is also, given its quality, virtually free at its current price. Now that they control the ebook industry, Amazon actually wants it to be free: the money is not in the hardware for them, it's in the direct path to the consumer and the ease of consumption, they crushed Borders and robbed Apple of a revenue stream it had every right to all because Apple refused to either make a budget gadget or take a loss on hardware.

    The vast majority of Amazon's plays operate in the same fashion and I think, yes, eventually, the future will be the present and that company is going to be a winner. Itunes Music seems to be the one thing Amazon can do nothing about; Netflix beat them to the punch on original programming as well and they bungled streaming by tying it to a shipping option as "Amazon Prime", so they're not perfect.

    Still, on balance, it's good looking company with MANY different revenue streams. Apple can sort of say that but they've got Google and Samsung giving them hell on both fronts. Amazon? There's nothing comparable, they're this weird amalgamation of Apple, UPS, and Ebay right now with a foot in the door of becoming Netflix, all four phases legitimate revenue generators. It's intoxicating. :grin:
  7. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,752
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +572
    What the experiment, and many others from behavior finance, is that people can deferentially value goods without a difference in the expected financial return. For example, people will drive an extra couple miles to get gum that is $5 cheaper, but no one will drive an extra couple miles for a TV that is $5 cheaper, even though the financial return is the same, $2.50/mile. Now, if you like, you can take your subjectivity model and apply it here, and say that this $5 is worth more than that $5, but then I'd say that the meaning of your model erodes into a semantic argument.

    By the way, as a Hayekian, I am very high on subjectivity of value. But this situation isn't the same as "something looking cooler", giving a difference in the compared goods. Here we have $5 vs. $5 or Duke tickets vs. Duke tickets.
  8. corpgator
    Offline

    corpgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,397
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +749
    I buy multiple things from them all the time and have never paid for shipping. Before I bought prime for free 2 day shipping on everything, I always used free super saver.

    The one thing everyone loves about amazon is their great customer service. Write them and they will make it right.
  9. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,603
    Likes Received:
    2,456
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,286
    Good for you.
  10. mastoidbone
    Offline

    mastoidbone VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    7,239
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +18
    In the end---the value of any stock is expected discounted flow of cash to stockholder over a 50 year time period----where will online retailing be over that 50 years?
    Might Amazon be the new Walmart?
  11. Matthanuf06
    Offline

    Matthanuf06 New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2007
    Messages:
    10,825
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings Received:
    +17
    A 50 year time period? No DCF goes that long. The best maybe can project 5-7 years and then use terminal/ perpetual values
  12. urg8rbait
    Offline

    urg8rbait Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +2
    Who knows why someone would driver further for a specific item or not. I might save a couple of bucks on a TV if I drive further because I could buy something else with it at the same store. Or maybe I could visit my grandma who happens to live close by to the far store that costs a bit more because its more convenient.

    I bought my brand new from a dealer that was further away simply because the people were nicer even though I could have bought the same car for the same price a couple of miles away. Doesn't matter what the reason for my choice.... Its still rational if I put thought into it where, what, and how I decide to buy something. Its by definition.
  13. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,752
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +572
    These are experimental conditions, under which these variables -store selection, grandma's house, etc.- are eliminated. If these differential conditions existed, I'd certainly agree that this would make subjective the value of such differential choices.

    Again, you found something that made the value of the buying experience different, nicer staff, so there is nothing irrational about making the choice to pay extra for that. Again, that is simply a matter of preference.

    Again, I worry that this is a semantic argument. So your definition requires that one puts "thought" into the process of exchange. I've been basically asking the question of the outcome, what if these people thoughts end up specifically making the outcome disparate from their desired outcome, even though they were endowed with the information to make the other choice? To me, that is close the definition of irrational. And for your definition, what if these people only think that they put thought into it? Is that the same thing? I am thinking of unconscious bias here. A good example of an unconscious bias called anchoring:

    So this effect (1) is completely unknown to the subject, so does not exactly meet your definition of "think" and (2) pairs two situations which are completely unrelated, SS# and value of a lamp. To me, this violates even your broad definition of rationality, and even if you want to change your definition to be even more inclusive, I think you are going to lose all power of the definition. Any concept that is all-inclusive is meaningless.
  14. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    69,764
    Likes Received:
    4,296
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +8,654
    it would not surprise me in the lest to see Christy become a dem prior to the next election for Prez

Share This Page