Posted on 08/03/2018 8:04:09 AM PDT by Moonman62
“Yes, but there were 500+ other Amazons 20 years ago”
Not really. Those others were not lead by men of vision.
I’ve seen bad-mouthing of Amazon this year.
The blogs are full of desperate shorts.
You obviously have no idea of Buffets golden rules for investing.
LOL. Then why have shorts lost billions?
...
They only listen to sell side analysts and other shorts. Plus there was that hit piece the LATimes did on Musk and subsidies in 2015. And every time a Tesla catches fire it’s international news, even though their rate of catching fire is one tenth of an ICE car per mile driven.
As Scott Adams likes to point out, people make decisions based on emotions, not facts, and then they use cognitive bias to rationalize their decisions.
Cheat?
While that is certainly true of a lot of them, that is not true of all of them. And historically many of the best inventors in US history have died broke. There are a number of differences between amazon and tesla, none of which is in TSLA favor (more capital intensive, not just facilitating sales from other sellers, fewer adjacent markets to get into and at a higher capital cost, etc). There are indeed scenarios will TSLA becomes very profitable, which is how the stock is currently priced. There are also many scenarios where it only becomes marginally profitable and ones where they go bankrupt.
No
I said men of vision, not inventors.
“fewer adjacent markets to get into”
Obviously you don’t understand Tesla and Musk.
Largely a semantic argument, IMO. People that invent things tend to have a vision, or they wouldn’t be creating new things.
“more capital intensive”
LOL! Amazon spends every extra can’t on capital expenditures.
We'll see. Amazon can jump to virtually any industry at this point with minimal effort and without raising significant capital relative to its market cap. TSLA can do that too, but not with the same relative ease - especially if the next couple of years disappoint on the core business.
“Largely a semantic argument”
NOPE!
The difference is AMZN is spending on capital expenditures from FCF to move into adjacent industries. TSLA must raise additional capital and is burning through cash rapidly. If Amazon stopped expanding, their earnings and FCF would explode. TSLA’s would barely change.
Will have to agree to disagree then.
Yes, but there were 500+ other Amazons 20 years ago that are now all worthless or close to it.
...
There was only one Amazon for those paying attention.
Your earlier post referenced number, now you have shifted to financing.
I take it you have accepted my objection to your earlier statement.
BTW - Amazon’s 2018 FCF after capex is going to be ~$17.5 billion. TSLA is negative $1.7B. Amazon also has a history of beating consensus. TSLA has a history of missing.
Absolutely not - AMZN has expanded into far more industries and verticals and will expand far more than TSLA will over the next 3, 5 or 10 years - for both the financing piece as well as the relatively ease of integration into their overall customer platform.
Hindsight is so easy. AMZN 20 years+ ago was mainly a bookseller that barely was doing $1b in revenue and was losing nearly as much as they were selling and was just starting to sell other products (Ebay and others had a big headstart on online selling for general merchandise). That profile fit the bill of virtually every dotcom company at the time. Best of luck.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.