1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Amazon is buying Whole Foods

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by The Big Ragu, Jun 16, 2017.

  1. Michael_ Gee

    Michael_ Gee Well-Known Member

    You mean like buying the Washington Post? Seriously, if Amazon wants to get into Internet grocery sales, they need a national brick and mortar distribution outlet. Also, relatively high profit margin items for supermarkets, especially Whole Foods, like meats, deli and prepared foods, are just not something folks are gonna buy online sight unseen.
     
  2. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    With demand crashing for commercial real estate, I would be wary of anyone buying a company "for the property."
     
  3. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I'll preface this by saying that value is whatever someone wants to pay for something. ... That is, until there aren't buyers at the level you paid for it. ...

    On any metric of price to earnings or price to sales, or other ways of traditoinally valuing a company, all of those companies right now are beyond what you could call richly value.

    They are all great companies. But that has nothing to do with valuation. A BMW is a great car. ... Would you spend $3 million to own one?

    I just did the math. The combined valuation of Google (Alphabet), Facebook and Amazon based on current stock prices is $1.607 trillion. ... that is about 8.7 percent of the size of the U.S. economy. By comparison, their combined earnings last year were about $32 billion. That is way out of whack.

    We have seen this before. ... it's always different. The valuations on those companies can come crashing way back down to earth, and I am fairly sure they will still be great companies with decent revenue and earnings streams. But earnings have a limit on what they are worth,and it seems to me we have entered absurd territory. There were great companies in 1999 that were at ridiculous valuations (not the Pets.coms, but real companies that were viable) that didn't reach that same valuations again until 2015 or 2016 -- Cisco Systems, for example. Great company. It was just trading at a ridiculous level and when the silliness ended it corrected itself.

    Then there are all the companies right now that aren't Facebook or Alphabet that are at sky high valuations.

    This was something sarcastic that zero hedge put up yesterday: "Probably Nothing" | Zero Hedge

    The CAPE ratio it mentions is a cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio -- it is a 10 year moving average of earnings for the S&P 500 adjusted for inflation. Simple concept. We have spent the last 2 years or so @ levels beyond where the market was trading in 1929 and 2007 when it crashed. Only during the dot-com bubble did it get frothier than where we are at now. and yesterday according to that it got over 30 for the first time since the dot-com era. I personally think we have been on borrowed time for the last 2 years and counting.

    At the same time, the VIX (which is a gauge of market volatility) is at historic lows. There is seemingly no concern -- despite weak economic data, flagging global economies and geopolitical concerns. And it all corresponds to central banks that continue to pump liquidity into the markets by suppressing interest rates and buying up trillions of dollars of debt (and equities in the case of some central banks that are propping up stocks directly). Which is what it is really about. My sense, from having watched markets for 30 years is that that is why Google, Facebook and Amazon (along with hundreds of lesser companies) are trading so richly. I also am quite certain that that kind of artificiality is going to be unsustainable.
     
    Inky_Wretch and TigerVols like this.
  4. TigerVols

    TigerVols Well-Known Member

    The point I poorly tried to make is that control of the Internet is firmly in the grasp of these three companies. So my question is, if BMW was the only car manufacturer on the planet, don't you think they could charge $3 million per car?
     
  5. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    No.
     
  6. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    I don't think it's as in control as you seem to believe.
     
  7. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    How much can SiriusXM get away with charging its subscribers?
     
  8. cranberry

    cranberry Well-Known Member

    Yeah, I recall 1995 when AOL and Yahoo! were in control and everybody would have been wise to just stop competing.
     
    YankeeFan likes this.
  9. JohnHammond

    JohnHammond Well-Known Member

    Have never paid the advertised price for SiriusXM. As Kramer says, "retail is for suckers."
     
    YankeeFan likes this.
  10. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    Same here ... came with a trial in the new mini-. Re-upped at the $25 for six months rate (which requires you to call in and cancel ... I need to do that this week).
     
  11. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    It happens so often it's almost a cliche ...
     
  12. WriteThinking

    WriteThinking Well-Known Member

    I just think it's interesting that Amazon, which is as "online" as online is ever going to get, is seeking to go, seemingly, backward, into brick-and-mortar business at a time when I think everyone sees brick-and-mortars going the way of, oh, newspapers.

    I see what you're saying, and I agree, that Amazon will need a more in-ground footprint to make it with foods. But that's primarily because their primary competitor for that business -- Walmart -- already has it, and people are not QUITE ready to go all-online for foods just yet.

    I personally do think that we're headed that way, though, and that people will soon be able, and willing, to order and buy foods online, and that they'll eventually do it on a regular basis, just like with everything else. As with newspapers, actual physical delivery may end up being something of an Achilles heel, I think. But Walmart already is implementing a version food ordering -- even for fresh, dairy and meats -- in which, yes, customers do in fact buy items sight unseen -- at least until their purchases are presented to them, either curbside or at their homes.

    There will probably be, indeed there will have to be, all kinds of new regulations, new company policies and new safety rules and parameters, etc., established along the way as Amazon and Walmart try to get things all figured out. But those will all evolve in time, just like the basic business-customer dynamic is doing.

    And just as has already occurred between newspapers -- what are those? -- and readers.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page