Topic No. 419 Gambling Income and Losses | Internal

gambling winnings are included in gross income only to the extent

gambling winnings are included in gross income only to the extent - win

/r/neoliberal elects the American Presidents - Part 48, Reagan v Mondale in 1984

Previous editions:
(All strawpoll results counted as of the next post made)
Part 1, Adams v Jefferson in 1796 - Adams wins with 68% of the vote
Part 2, Adams v Jefferson in 1800 - Jefferson wins with 58% of the vote
Part 3, Jefferson v Pinckney in 1804 - Jefferson wins with 57% of the vote
Part 4, Madison v Pinckney (with George Clinton protest) in 1808 - Pinckney wins with 45% of the vote
Part 5, Madison v (DeWitt) Clinton in 1812 - Clinton wins with 80% of the vote
Part 6, Monroe v King in 1816 - Monroe wins with 51% of the vote
Part 7, Monroe and an Era of Meta Feelings in 1820 - Monroe wins with 100% of the vote
Part 8, Democratic-Republican Thunderdome in 1824 - Adams wins with 55% of the vote
Part 9, Adams v Jackson in 1828 - Adams wins with 94% of the vote
Part 10, Jackson v Clay (v Wirt) in 1832 - Clay wins with 53% of the vote
Part 11, Van Buren v The Whigs in 1836 - Whigs win with 87% of the vote, Webster elected
Part 12, Van Buren v Harrison in 1840 - Harrison wins with 90% of the vote
Part 13, Polk v Clay in 1844 - Polk wins with 59% of the vote
Part 14, Taylor v Cass in 1848 - Taylor wins with 44% of the vote (see special rules)
Part 15, Pierce v Scott in 1852 - Scott wins with 78% of the vote
Part 16, Buchanan v Frémont v Fillmore in 1856 - Frémont wins with 95% of the vote
Part 17, Peculiar Thunderdome in 1860 - Lincoln wins with 90% of the vote.
Part 18, Lincoln v McClellan in 1864 - Lincoln wins with 97% of the vote.
Part 19, Grant v Seymour in 1868 - Grant wins with 97% of the vote.
Part 20, Grant v Greeley in 1872 - Grant wins with 96% of the vote.
Part 21, Hayes v Tilden in 1876 - Hayes wins with 87% of the vote.
Part 22, Garfield v Hancock in 1880 - Garfield wins with 67% of the vote.
Part 23, Cleveland v Blaine in 1884 - Cleveland wins with 53% of the vote.
Part 24, Cleveland v Harrison in 1888 - Harrison wins with 64% of the vote.
Part 25, Cleveland v Harrison v Weaver in 1892 - Harrison wins with 57% of the vote
Part 26, McKinley v Bryan in 1896 - McKinley wins with 71% of the vote
Part 27, McKinley v Bryan in 1900 - Bryan wins with 55% of the vote
Part 28, Roosevelt v Parker in 1904 - Roosevelt wins with 71% of the vote
Part 29, Taft v Bryan in 1908 - Taft wins with 64% of the vote
Part 30, Taft v Wilson v Roosevelt in 1912 - Roosevelt wins with 81% of the vote
Part 31, Wilson v Hughes in 1916 - Hughes wins with 62% of the vote
Part 32, Harding v Cox in 1920 - Cox wins with 68% of the vote
Part 33, Coolidge v Davis v La Follette in 1924 - Davis wins with 47% of the vote
Part 34, Hoover v Smith in 1928 - Hoover wins with 50.2% of the vote
Part 35, Hoover v Roosevelt in 1932 - Roosevelt wins with 85% of the vote
Part 36, Landon v Roosevelt in 1936 - Roosevelt wins with 75% of the vote
Part 37, Willkie v Roosevelt in 1940 - Roosevelt wins with 56% of the vote
Part 38, Dewey v Roosevelt in 1944 - Dewey wins with 50.2% of the vote
Part 39, Dewey v Truman in 1948 - Truman wins with 65% of the vote
Part 40, Eisenhower v Stevenson in 1952 - Eisenhower wins with 69% of the vote
Part 41, Eisenhower v Stevenson in 1956 - Eisenhower wins with 60% of the vote
Part 42, Kennedy v Nixon in 1960 - Kennedy wins with 63% of the vote
Part 43, Johnson v Goldwater in 1964 - Johnson wins with 87% of the vote
Part 44, Nixon v Humphrey in 1968 - Humphrey wins with 60% of the vote
Part 45, Nixon v McGovern in 1972 - Nixon wins with 56% of the vote
Part 46, Carter v Ford in 1976 - Carter wins with 71% of the vote
Part 47 - Carter v Reagan v Anderson in 1980 - Carter wins with 44% of the vote
Welcome back to the forty-eighth edition of /neoliberal elects the American presidents!
This will be a fairly consistent weekly thing - every week, a new election, until we run out.
I highly encourage you - at least in terms of the vote you cast - to try to think from the perspective of the year the election was held, without knowing the future or how the next administration would go. I'm not going to be trying to enforce that, but feel free to remind fellow commenters of this distinction.
If you're really feeling hardcore, feel free to even speak in the present tense as if the election is truly upcoming!
Whether third and fourth candidates are considered "major" enough to include in the strawpoll will be largely at my discretion and depend on things like whether they were actually intending to run for President, and whether they wound up actually pulling in a meaningful amount of the popular vote and even electoral votes. I may also invoke special rules in how the results will be interpreted in certain elections to better approximate historical reality.
While I will always give some brief background info to spur the discussion, please don't hesitate to bring your own research and knowledge into the mix! There's no way I'll cover everything!
Ronald Reagan v Walter Mondale, 1984
Profiles
  • Ronald Reagan is the 73-year-old Republican candidate and the current President. His running mate is current Vice President George Bush.
  • Walter Mondale is the 56-year-old Democratic candidate and the previous Vice President. His running mate is US Representative from New York Geraldine Ferraro.
Issues and Background
  • Within a year of taking office, President Reagan signed comprehensive tax reform legislation that exemplified his economic philosophy. The top marginal income rate was cut from 70% to 50%, and the rate on the lowest taxable bracket was reduced from 14% to 11%. The capital gains tax was reduced from 28% of 20%. Legislation in 1982, prompted by increases in the deficit, prevented the full tax cut aspirations of the 1981 legislation from going into effect. Reagan and his supporters credit his economic policies with the strong economic recovery since the beginning of 1983.
  • The last couple years have seen very large federal budget deficits, with the 1983 peak at a level unseen since immediately following World War II, even relative to GDP. Mondale has chosen to make this arguably his biggest domestic campaign issue. Mondale has argued that the "question of the deficit and getting interest rates down is the most important domestic problem of our time - nothing else compares with it." He has spoken in stark terms about the alleged stakes, saying:
    The President's point that growth will cure the deficit is obviously not the case. The deficit will get worse even with growth. Thus it is a very severe problem that threatens our future, saddles our kids with a with a trillion dollars worth of debt, is making us into a debtor nation, is destroying our position in international commerce, driving up interest rates, and is making the budget increasingly unmanageable.
    Further, Mondale has gone further in his gambit on making the deficit an election issue by pledging to raise taxes. In his nomination acceptance speech, Mondale said:
    Whoever is inaugurated in January, the American people will have to pay Mr. Reagan's bills. The budget will be squeezed. Taxes will go up. And anyone who says they won't is not telling the truth to the American people.
    I mean business. By the end of my first term, I will reduce the Reagan budget deficit by two-thirds.
    Let's tell the truth. That must be done - it must be done. Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won't tell you. I just did.
    • Specifically, the Mondale deficit reduction plan calls for $85 billion in new tax revenues and $105 billion in cuts in projected spending. The entirety of the new tax revenue is to be earmarked for a special fund to reduce the deficit. Any further new spending will be "pay as you go," requiring new revenue to cover the spending. The planned spending cuts are mostly decreases in the planned growth of spending, including for the military and Medicare, rather than outright cuts.
    • According to Mondale campaign advisers, a typical family of four with a gross annual income of $25,000 (OOC: ~$62,000 in 2020 dollars, same format for further parentheticals) will not see their taxes go up. However, by 1989, families making $25,000 to $35,000 (~$62,000 to $86,000) will see a tax increase of about $95 (~$200) families making up to $45,000 (~$111,000) will pay roughly $200 (~$500) more and families making $100,000 (~$250,000) will pay about $2,600 (~$6,400) more.
    • Republicans have of course criticized the Mondale plan sharply. Vice President Bush called it a "program for failure" that would stall the recovery. Reagan insists that deficit reduction must come through economic growth and reductions in wasteful government spending. Reagan describes a tax increase as a "last resort."
  • Religion and issues of morality have come up several times during this campaign. President Reagan favors a Constitutional amendment that would permit organized prayers in public schools that students can opt-out of. Mondale opposes the amendment. President Reagan also supports a Constitutional amendment banning abortions except when the life of the mother is at risk. Mondale is personally opposed to abortion but believes it should be a woman's individual choice. Mondale's running mate Geraldine Ferraro has received pushback for her statement that, "the President goes around calling himself a good Christian; I don't for a minute believe it," criticizing Reagan's policies as "unfair" and "discriminatory."
  • In fall 1983, following an internal power struggle in the country and pleas from other Caribbean nations, the United States invaded Grenada alongside several Caribbean nations. The invasion was successful, resulting in the establishment of a new interim government. Elections are intended to take place in the coming months. The Reagan Administration justified the intervention on the basis of protecting US medical students on the island. The UN General Assembly voted 108 to 9 to call the intervention a "flagrant violation of international law." Mondale raised questions about the invasion early on, but in the past couple months has spoken favorably of it.
  • The United States along with three European nations introduced a peacekeeping force into Lebanon in 1982, in the broader context of the Lebanese Civil War. US diplomatic and military forces have been the victim of a number of suicide bombings, in particular the 1983 bombings of Beirut barracks, killing 241 US military personnel. Mondale has been sharply critical of Reagan with respect to these bombings, arguing that there was plenty of warning to prevent them. Mondale has further argued that overall US policy in Lebanon has been marked by "unbelievable disorganization." In January, Mondale called for the withdrawal of US marines from Lebanon. Reagan argues that the US presence in Lebanon helped facilitate the withdrawal of Palestinian guerrilla fighters.
  • At no point in his first term thus far has President Reagan met with his Soviet counterpart, Konstantin Chernenko. Mondale has frequently criticized Reagan for this, and has promised he would hold annual summit meetings with Soviet leaders. Reagan has said that he would like a summit, but needs to feel sure it will produce results before it happens. More broadly, Reagan has described the necessary policy towards the Soviet Union as one of "credible deterrence and peaceful competition," though he has also not held back in his criticism of the Soviet Union, calling it just last year an "evil empire."
  • In 1979, the Sandinista National Liberation Front in Nicaragua overthrew the Somoza dictatorship and established a new government. Since then, counterrevolutionary forces including former pro-Somoza forces as well as disillusioned former Sandinistas, have engaged in armed conflict against the Sandinista government. Reagan cancelled economic aid to Nicaragua upon taking office, but has since said that there have been attempts to get along with the new government. However, Reagan has been sharply critical of Nicaragua's accused military buildup and "meddling" in El Salvador.
    • Mondale has criticized Reagan's "failed policies" in Central America and has promised that if elected, he would end all US military exercises in Central America, withdraw combat forces from Honduras, and "end the covert activities directed toward Nicaragua."
    • A CIA booklet became public this October which has raised questions about the nature of US covert activities in Nicaragua. As reported by the New York Times:
      A Central Intelligence Agency document that became public this week tells Nicaraguan rebels how to win popular support and gives advice on political assassination, blackmail and mob violence.
      The 44-page booklet, titled ''Psychological Operations in Guerrilla Warfare,'' is a primer on insurgency. Most activity of this sort in Nicaragua has been paid for by the United States through the C.I.A.
      The primer explains how to kidnap and kill officials, blow up public buildings and blackmail ordinary citizens.
  • Ferraro and her husband have come under intense media scrutiny over their financial history, with accusations ranging from tax avoidance to connections to organized crime, pornography, and gambling. In response, the couple has relented in releasing several years of tax returns, and Ferraro has allowed the media hours of her time to ask questions related to her and her husband's finances. Most accusations against them have proven to be exaggerated, though there are still lingering questions regarding certain accounting errors that were made. For more technical details, see coverage by the New York Times or Washington Post.
  • Particularly following what some considered to be a sub-par first debate performance, some Democrats are openly raising the question of whether Reagan, 73, is too old to continue serving as President. Asked at a White House event whether age should be considered a legitimate issue, Reagan said jokingly of Mondale, "I'll challenge him to an arm-wrestle any time." Reagan's more vigorous second debate performance has led to a diminishing of the age discussion.
  • In June 1981, the Associated Press and Los Angeles Times reported on a rare lung infection in 5 young previously healthy gay men in Los Angeles. Since then, over 6,000 cases of "acquired immune deficiency syndrome" (AIDS) have been reported to public health officials. In April of this year, the cause of the disease was discovered, a retrovirus known as HTLV-III. According to the CDC, "most cases have been reported among homosexual men with multiple sexual partners, abusers of intravenous drugs, and Haitians, especially those who have entered the country within the past few years." The case fatality rate is extremely high. Scientists say the virus is mainly spread through sexual contact. There were two major developments just recently in October. First, the New York Times reported that saliva may be a possible source of transmission, though it remains unlikely that it is a "key mode of spread." Second, under pressure from Mayor Dianne Feinstein, San Francisco public health officials ordered a number of bathhouses and sex clubs geared towards homosexual men closed. Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services argue that this disease has become a top research priority for them, and that they expect to spend many millions of dollars on research grants and other efforts. However, some groups like the National Gay Task Force have criticized the government sharply and say that not nearly enough is being done. Many criticisms of the government and other institutions and groups of people are covered in the essay from last year famous in the gay community, "1,112 and Counting" by Larry Kramer, published in the New York Native. Neither Reagan nor Mondale have spoken of this disease on the campaign trail.
    OOC Note: There is no indication that AIDS was an issue in the presidential election. Even gay newspapers from this time did not relate the crisis much if at all to the presidential election. To the extent that government policy was discussed, it was often local policy. Why mention it then? Well, it's a similar situation to Japanese internment and the 1944 election. I know some of you will bring this up no matter what, understandably, and so I'd like to at the very least calibrate the discussion to the year of the election with proper context and background.
Platforms (Important note if this is influencing your vote: These are just excerpts, not everything is included and inclusion of a point in one set of excerpts does NOT mean the other party took the opposing stance or didn't mention it; also, especially in the modern era, a Presidential candidate may disagree with the party platform)
Read the full 1984 Republican platform here. 10 Excerpts:
  1. "We reaffirm our conviction that State and local governments closest to the people are the best and most efficient"
  2. "The Republican Party pledges to continue our efforts to lower tax rates, change and modernize the tax system, and eliminate the incentive-destroying effects of graduated tax rates ... We therefore support tax reform that will lead to a fair and simple tax system and believe a modified flat tax—with specific exemptions for such items as mortgage interest—is a most promising approach"
  3. "The President is denied proper control over the federal budget ... To remedy this, we support enhanced authority to prevent wasteful spending, including a line-item veto"
  4. "We need coordination between fiscal and monetary policy, timely information about Fed decisions, and an end to the uncertainties people face in obtaining money and credit ... The Gold Standard may be a useful mechanism for realizing the Federal Reserve's determination to adopt monetary policies needed to sustain price stability"
  5. "The greatest danger today to our international trade is a growing protectionist sentiment"
  6. "The Republican Party has deep concern about gratuitous sex and violence in the entertainment media, both of which contribute to the problem of crime against children and women"
  7. "We Republicans emphasize that there is a profound moral difference between the actions and ideals of Marxist-Leninist regimes and those of democratic governments, and we reject the notions of guilt and apology which animate so much of the foreign policy of the Democratic Party"
  8. "Stable and peaceful relations with the Soviet Union are possible and desirable, but they depend upon the credibility of American strength and determination"
  9. "We ... reaffirm our support for a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children"
  10. "We affirm our country's absolute fight to control its borders ... Those desiring to enter must comply with our immigration laws ... Failure to do so not only is an offense to the American people but is fundamentally unjust to those in foreign lands patiently waiting for legal entry ... We will preserve the principle of family reunification"
Read the full 1984 Democratic platform here. 10 Excerpts:
  1. "Instead of runaway deficits, a Democratic Administration will pursue overall economic policies that sharply reduce deficits, down interest rates, free savings for private investment, prevent another explosion of inflation and put the dollar on a competitive footing"
  2. "We will pursue international negotiations to open markets and eliminate trade restrictions, recognizing that the growth and stability of the Third World depends on its ability to sell its products in international markets"
  3. "The Environmental Protection Agency should receive a budget that exceeds in real dollars the agency's purchasing power when President Reagan took office, since the agency's workload has almost doubled in recent years"
  4. "After four years in which the roll of dishonor in the Administration has grown weekly and monthly—from Richard Allen to Rita Lavelle, from Thomas Reed to James Watt—it is time for an end to the embarrassment of Republican cronyism and malfeasance"
  5. "Violent acts of bigotry, hatred and extremism aimed at women, racial, ethnic and religious minorities, and gay men and lesbians have become an alarmingly common phenomenon ... A Democratic Administration will work vigorously to address, document, and end all such violence"
  6. "In the year made famous by George Orwell, we can see the realization of many of his grimmest prophecies in the totalitarian Soviet state, which has amassed an arsenal of weapons far beyond its defensive needs"
  7. "Sadly, Mr. Reagan has opted for the all too frequent American response to the unrest that has characterized Central America-military assistance ... Over the past 100 years, Panama. Nicaragua, and Honduras have all been occupied by U.S. forces in an effort to suppress indigenous revolutionary movements"
  8. "A Democratic President will pursue a foreign policy that advances basic civil and political rights—freedom of speech, association, thought and religion, the right to leave, freedom of the integrity of the person, and the prohibition of torture, arbitrary detention and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment—and that seeks as well to attain basic, economic, social, and cultural rights"
  9. "We support tough restraints on the manufacture, transportation, and sale of snub-nosed handguns, which have no legitimate sporting use and are used in a high proportion of violent crimes"
  10. "...the Reagan Administration has acted as if deficits do not count ... The deficits are huge and are expected to get larger—and they are a major negative factor in everything from high interest rates to the third world debt crisis"
Video Clips
Debates
First Presidential Debate
Vice Presidential Debate
Second Presidential Debate
Speeches
Mondale nomination acceptance speech
Reagan nomination acceptance speech
Advertisements
Reagan "Morning in America" ad
Reagan White House ad
Reagan peace ad
Reagan train ad
Mondale nuclear devastation ad
Mondale "in real America" ad
Mondale trade ad
Mondale "killer weapons" in space ad
Strawpoll
>>>VOTE HERE<<<
submitted by John_Charles_Fremont to neoliberal [link] [comments]

$AMZN - Why Amazon Is Going to Dominate the Next Decade

$AMZN - Why Amazon Is Going to Dominate the Next Decade
EDIT: TLDR - Buy AMZN get Tendies - See comments for Trash Talk - Thanks for the Silver!
EDIT 2: Thank you u/Dmillehe spending his money on Platinum instead of AMZN stock. You're the real autist.
Amazon is going to dominate the next decade. It's a wonderful business trading at a discount to it's true ability to create cash earnings. My thesis is that traditional methods of valuation that work for most companies don't work for Amazon. This misunderstanding between market 'conservatives' or 'traditionalists' .. so called value oriented investors (of which I consider myself a part) is currently reflected in the share price today, and it's a mistake. Second, the firm has reached a point of inflection, where scale will now provide growth of earnings far in excess of growth in sales. This multiyear catalyst provides a fundamental basis for significant share price appreciation.
To understand why Amazon presents such a compelling investment opportunity, one must understand what is currently transpiring in two specific and unique business segments. E-commerce and Cloud Computing. Many of you are probably familiar with at least the former. The latter is foreign territory to most.
E-Commerce: Why Amazon is prepared to conquer the next decade in retail.
Traditional retail or brick and mortar (B&M from here on out) is still the dominant form of consumer spending in the U.S. and will be for some time. As of Q3 2019, total retail spend amounts to $5.4 Trillion dollar for the prior 12 months. E-commerce amounts to merely 11.2% of this amount (on a run rate basis.) While the size remains relatively small, e-commerce is growing in the mid-teens year over year, or now 5% quarter to quarter and the rate of growth is accelerating. The rate of E-commerce growth has doubled in 12 months.
To understand why this is the case, a qualitative evaluation of the differences between the two is critical. B&M requires physical space that is expensive to build and maintain. It requires uniformed, reliable, friendly and knowledgeable staff. It requires the deliberate presentation of inventory and restocking, amounting to a unique challenge to the retailer of determining layout of shelf space, product mix and promotion.
It's costly for the consumer too. They have to drive there, walk in, and find what they are looking for. This requires owning a car or putting up with public transportation. This can take a significant amount of time. There are some hidden costs too, without E-commerce, price discovery is a pain in the ass. Something retailers are keenly aware of. Here's something interesting about humans and economics. In economics, for a long time, we've modeled humans like they're these perfect rational beings. Ideally.. they'll drive down the road to a different store to get 3% off of whatever they're buying. Ideally. And you will do that for a car. But in reality, if it's 3% off a bag of chips, it's not worth the hassle. It's too expensive to go get $.14 of savings when you have to drive another 10 minutes to another grocery, walk in to figure it out if you're actually saving the most money.. consumers don't do that.
Consumers don't engage in price discovery on most of their small dollar purchases, they don't do that with traditional retail, because it's too costly in time and effort. There's too much friction in the trade-off.
The value proposition of E-commerce is that it saves consumers time and money. Getting in the car, loading the kids in the back, driving, parking, and then hunting for what you want, making sure you are getting a fair price, E-commerce throws all of that out the window. The value proposition for retailers too, is that it saves them time and money. There are plenty of retailers currently taking an omni-channel approach to retail, those who want to shop in person get to, those who shop online can do that too.. everybody wins. E-commerce takes the friction out of price discovery on small dollar purchases.
Given the advent of mobile computing more than a decade ago, many big box retailers also adopted a price match strategy, if you can find it online for the same price? Best Buy, Micro Center etc. they'll match it to keep you as a customer. But that's the extent of it, try going to Kroger and arguing with the cashier about Albersons having a 3/$5 deal on Frito Lay Potato Chips.. that ain't happening.
Amazon isn't Ecommerce, they are a part of it. Their strategy is different than the whole. They are technically omni-channel. However the little B&M they've done mostly as R&D experiment, more on Whole Foods in a minute. The Amazon E-Commerce thesis is this: At the end of the day, most consumer purchases are commodity purchases. They are small dollar items that are easily replicated. This segment of retail has yet to be disrupted by E-Commerce until now. It overlaps with specialty retail and big box items almost seamlessly from a logistical standpoint. The revenue streams are more stable than specialty retail, and it presents a massive opportunity in the long run.
I had the chance to speak with a finance manager at Frito-Lay (subsidiary of PepsiCo) years back after Amazon bought Whole Foods. Amazon had been attempting for years to get the same products you see in any Kroger or Albertsons onto their platform. For a variety of reasons, PepsiCo would not play ball with Amazon. It amounted to channel conflicts between the big established players vs. the disruptive incumbent. What Pepsico had done to Amazon, had been done by Proctor and Gamble, Nestle, Kellogg, and many more.
The purchase of Whole Foods was a big F U, a "we'll do it live" moment.. a Leeroy Jenkins. So you won't let us into your club? Fine, we'll do it ourselves. Grocer's panicked and for good reason. They were the reason Amazon had been held at bay for so long. They'd used their absolute size for many years to prevent E-commerce retailers from getting the same product mix at the same price online. Amazon responded by entering their territory, in buying a physical grocery chain. Grocer's fear was real and warranted, however the truly brilliant component of this purchase was that Amazon purchased for themselves a supply chain for grocery and private label products (365 brand.) Fast forward a couple years and Amazon now has over four hundred private label brands, more than twenty three thousand individual SKUs and 1.4 Million reviews of these products/brands. That entire article is worth a thorough read. Each product line represents a moonshot where amazon can collect both sides of margin on a private label product that disrupts traditional brands. Often it goes well, sometimes it does not, but the platform allows them to poke holes in each product category, and cannibalize the producer surplus of other more expensive branded product in the process. They don't have to advertise, market or promote any of this either.. yet it's already getting plenty of attention.
Here is a compelling example of how Amazon can undercut a premium brand with it's store brand knock off. And there's nothing Allbirds can do about it.
Amazon has built out an infrastructure of warehouses (which are relatively cheaper to maintain on a $/sf basis than traditional B&M retail space) and delivery drivers to meet the daily needs of consumers accustomed to B&M retail. They've disinter-mediated the entire process. You do not need a car, you don't have to be nice to the person behind the counter, or go hunting for that specific product you need on aisle 9, or check to see if the price is competitive or on deal. You can just type it in to your phone in 5 seconds, and see quickly who has the best deal. Turns out (and this is from experience) 9/10 times Amazon has the best deal and they'll ship it that day or the next.
For the consumer, it amounts to savings in both time and money. What the data shows is that we are experiencing rapid change in slow motion. E-commerce is growing explosively here in the U.S. however it's still of relatively small scale, that it will take some time before eclipsing B&M retail. Second, the data shows this rate of growth is accelerating, and has doubled in the last year or so. Traditional retail is not going to disappear entirely either. There are plenty of Amazon proof businesses for now. Hair salons, vets, dentists, nail salons, along with restaurants and apparel to a certain extent.
This online E-commerce platform has allowed Amazon to build out a peripheral advertising business in search. The search component allows Amazon to promote it's own store brand product alongside the branded counterparts. Second, it's able to sell web page space to branded products. Google currently dominates the search game, but Amazon is in 2nd place and stealing market share.
Finally, Amazon has rolled out a wonderful product called Subscribe and Save. Within this platform, Amazon is able to offer 15%-20% savings on everyday commodity items in exchange for a commitment to purchase at a monthly frequency (and it can be cancelled at any time.) What Amazon has discovered is that subscription purchases are relatively sticky. In exchange for a soft commitment from consumers that is relatively stable and predictable, Amazon can actually lower the cost of goods to the consumer. In turn, they are also able to optimize logistically for these sales as they can plan far in advance for them. Second, this allows them to relay demand information to other merchants as well. Example: Amazon can remit data to Tide, and let them know how many pods they expect to need in the coming months based on subscription commitments. Both Tide and Amazon are able to lower CoGS because they have more time to plan for those costs.
Furthermore, if you have an Amazon Credit Card through Chase bank, you get an additional 3%-5% all purchase at Amazon & Whole Foods.
The combination of all of these benefits as a platform amounts is an incredibly compelling value proposition to consumers. As of June this year Amazon has accumulated 105 Million Prime Memberships in the United States, and it is the largest paid subscriber base of any company in the United States period.
One of the luxuries I enjoy in my occupation is that my employer has a very long investment time horizon & high risk tolerance. What this allows is for us to kick back, put our feet on the table and think about what the world will look like in 10 years and how we'd consider being a part of it.
So here's a thought experiment, what do you think the retail experience for consumers looks like in a decade? Here's my prediction. Consumer's buy the vast majority of the things they need online, and they receive it within a few hours to a day, and they're spending less than ever before on what they need. This is already happening, and It's grabbed the attention of people like Jim Cramer, as well as Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. Albeit, E-Commerce is relatively small for now, but the rapid transformation is already causing ripple effects across retail. In 10 years, my thesis is that E-commerce becomes the largest component of total retail sales and Amazon remains the largest component of that segment, as it is today. Additionally, they probably steal share and grow at a faster pace than E-commerce as a whole, as they have done over the last several years.
Personal anecdote:
I'm sitting here in my home office wearing Amazon branded Jeans. I've got 10+ Amazon branded undershirts upstairs, along with 5+ pairs of Amazon Synthetic Golf Shorts. In my house, we've got Amazon branded batteries, note cards & printer paper, detergent pods, echo devices, cameras and more all over the place. There's more too, but I'm not going to list it all. In my experience, what they make is just as good if not better than the branded counterpart, and they do it for less, often a lot less. And I got tired of hyperlinking, so if you're curious, go to amazon.com and start looking around for these products.
Even more, as of now my wife and I spend +$250/mo on subscribe and save items we need for our household, this includes baby formula, diapers and wipes, detergent, shampoo and soap, trash bags, dog food, paper towels and more. We use the 5% back credit card and blended save close to 20% on these daily items we need.
In conclusion, on E-Commerce, I expect Amazon to dominate the next decade in retail. They have a massive competitive advantage over other retailers engaged in an omni-channel strategy, therefore it's their game to lose. Furthermore, their competitive edge today will compound into the future and amount to further share gains and a wider moat in years to come.
Cloud Computing: What is this industry, how does Amazon fit in the picture, and why is it such a big deal?
Again, to understand Amazon you'll have to understand what Cloud Computing is. This is not an everyday consumer product/service, therefore it's foreign to most individuals. Second, because the transactions and services are business to business (B2B) it's relatively difficult to determine detailed industry characteristics. What may come as a surprise to you, is it's the most profitable business segment (on a NOPAT basis) and it's also their fastest growing segment.
Cloud computing is the service of providing storage, services, databases, software, security, analytics, artificial intelligence and infrastructure through the internet. There was a time when most businesses built their own server racks, and maintained their own infrastructure. Amazon too did this for themselves in building out their own infrastructure to maintain their E-Commerce platform. In time, they naturally sold this service to other firms.
So where does Amazon fit in now? From all indications cloud computing appears to be an arms race. The most recent estimates for market share vary depending on the research provider. The differences lie in what is being measured. There are multiple components of Cloud: PaaS, IaaS, and SaaS. By all accounts, Amazon Web Services is the clear market leader, but they aren't growing as fast as some of their well funded peers like Microsoft and Google.
The available literature on Cloud Computing as a whole is vague. There are important questions to answer regarding structural advantage or lack thereof, who has the competitive edge, or what kind of moats have been built. Amazon's slowing growth rate in Cloud is concerning. Ramped spend in R&D + SG&A during the 2019 fiscal year is encouraging, and these investments will reduce erosion of market share.
While Cloud remains Amazon's most profitable business segment for now, by revenue it's just ~12.5% of sales. Admittedly I am troubled by the amount of information I cannot obtain without significantly paying out of pocket. Nevertheless, given the relative size of this business, I'm comfortable putting the pencil down on AWS for now, and watching the industry closely going forward.
Other Business Segments:
Amazon has other business segments like their own B&M retail stores including Whole Foods, it's 4 star retail chain as well as it's cashierless Amazon Go stores. All of these combined are worth little compared to the market cap, while interesting.. they are insignificant in determining Amazon's value as a business.
What is Amazon worth today?
Herein lies the problem for analysts when the look at Amazon. The most commonly used methods for determining value are off the charts, for the most part Amazon looks like lighting money on fire.

https://preview.redd.it/7iq4kk8hesa41.png?width=1703&format=png&auto=webp&s=e7b8a9fb6090406db8e0ddd51e9e776062b646cd
A simple value oriented investor looks at a trailing P/E of 84.19 and thinks why would I wait 84 years to get paid back?

https://preview.redd.it/d76fratiesa41.png?width=1689&format=png&auto=webp&s=0cc4e3e57054f658a33a7173084e1a5338da1997
Of course, that's too myopic, and value oriented investors who take that approach, quickly learn trailing P/E is the key to building a portfolio of value traps. More sophisticated investors like Joel Greenblatt might recommend using something like ROIC to gauge how much Amazon benefits from reinvesting and building out it's own business.
The problem with that approach is that ROC, ROCE, and ROIC all use some form of GAAP earnings (either NOPAT or EBIT) to backsolve for this return number. If you look at Amazon's Income Statement, and dissect why net income is what it is there's a good reason why most value metrics/ratios don't work for Amazon. They are investing ~3x NOPAT and 60% of Gross profit into R&D. SG&A tells a similar story. What is R&D anyways? One time costs to develop and build out a business. What is SG&A, variable manpower with a significantly lagged ROI when ramped more than 20% YoY.

https://preview.redd.it/15v33d1lesa41.png?width=890&format=png&auto=webp&s=d4562988962ffc48d858a24b2a190b4db65f4c3d
What dawned on me months ago is this.. what if Amazon cut it's R&D to 0, and didn't touch SG&A? P/E TTM drops to ~20x. What happens to sales growth then? It slows.. and eventually converges with GDP, and then falls beyond that. The story of what Amazon's business is, especially E-Commerce, helps shed light on how long it'd take for Amazon's growth to converge with GDP, when they're on the cutting edge of the knife, and most other competitors remain far behind.
What do other institutions believe Amazon is worth?
https://preview.redd.it/wuzx3n6nesa41.png?width=482&format=png&auto=webp&s=959d83285bb9f67715415a9011802e6039d72d2d
There are 45 Wallstreet Analysts covering the stock. On average, their price target is 2170. Based on the share price today, if they're right, you can expect a 15% return. What if the bears are right? You'll lose ~2% rounding down. And the bulls? the highest estimate is 2550, and represents a 35% premium on the stock.
Here's what Morningstar thinks:

https://preview.redd.it/capam6koesa41.png?width=598&format=png&auto=webp&s=b2ae1e2e6b91882f60c01dec9cb983c8439ccfa8
Keep in mind, the last price is a bit dated. Let's pretend Morningstar is right, I like them more than most analysts. You can expect a 22% return.
I don't like wall street analysts, if I did, I wouldn't do this, and I'd just follow their guidance. They are often right, but can be very wrong at times. The problem with wall street analysts is that they are subject to herding, as well as many other behavioral biases and sometimes conflicts of interest.
But assuming they're right, this is an asymmetric long to take, with significant upside today.
I have an estimate for fair value as well. This involves taking the current growth rate for amazon as well as the mean estimate of earnings two years out. However, instead of earnings, I like mean cash flow per share, because it remains undistorted by GAAP adjustments.
Here are the current cash flow per share estimates:

https://preview.redd.it/9e4sgdmqesa41.png?width=773&format=png&auto=webp&s=d878cacc7620af283233c63ab493c6500b55ba0c
Here is my valuation model:

https://preview.redd.it/3pqriw0sesa41.png?width=1694&format=png&auto=webp&s=16810d9c5ad87ca7b10b01ae3cb590e774f28340
Bottom left in yellow: that is the implied value of AMZN shares today, based on the discounted free cash flows.
Bottom middle with a red circle around it, those are my assumptions for long term growth rate and EPS 2 years out.. so TTM 2021 cash flows.
This would imply a 63% upside on the share price today.
Now, I don't think anyone is getting 63% today, for AMZN shares. Admittedly I'd be surprised if you got ~$3100 for AMZN shares in a year. Unfortunately.. this business will probably continue to be misunderstood like it has been for many years until they're done reinvesting a significant portion of their gross profit into building the infrastructure that expands their business. However, that cash flow number will become remarkably close to EPS with R&D turned off. When it does, share price will rocket. Instead of this becoming a one time event, I expect convergence will be gradual over time, which makes it a long term hold.
More on valuation:
I was disappointed but not surprised to find I'm not the only one thinking about valuation in this way. The authors take is similar to mine, and he comes to a similar conclusion as well: ~20x P/E TTM. I've gone through everything the VIC has to say about AMZN and most everything should be available to you as non-members as it is dated. I found message 109 especially compelling:

https://preview.redd.it/g91fx2ptesa41.png?width=1221&format=png&auto=webp&s=4edce5cbfdb19ae88045ad45b574ee1d7ff60694
In Conclusion: I recommend Amazon stock as a long term investment. I believe this is one of the best value propositions available in this market. Regardless of the broader stock market, the secular trends within retail are significant tailwinds to Amazons largest business segment.
Disclaimer: This document is entirely my own work, outside of linked/pictured information above which has been cited. I own a significant amount of AMZN stock personally. I am not responsible for your gains or losses. I may add more information to this document in the future.
Addendum (1/14/20): The most significant risk to this business is political. The election of either Warren or Sanders in November of this year would most certainly affect valuation for this business in the near term. Whether Amazon is actually harmed by political interference is another story. For now, it appears the odds that either of these candidates receives the nomination is significantly below 50%, furthermore, as of now it appears they would be significantly disadvantaged against the orange man. Consider this tail risk.
submitted by soundofreedom to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

(AMZN) - Long Thesis

(AMZN) - Long Thesis
Amazon is going to dominate the next decade. It's a wonderful business trading at a discount to it's true ability to create cash earnings. My thesis is that traditional methods of valuation that work for most companies don't work for Amazon. This misunderstanding between market 'conservatives' or 'traditionalists' .. so called value oriented investors (of which I consider myself a part) is currently reflected in the share price today, and it's a mistake. Second, the firm has reached a point of inflection, where scale will now provide growth of earnings far in excess of growth in sales. This multiyear catalyst provides a fundamental basis for significant share price appreciation.
To understand why Amazon presents such a compelling investment opportunity, one must understand what is currently transpiring in two specific and unique business segments. E-commerce and Cloud Computing. Many of you are probably familiar with at least the former. The latter is foreign territory to most.
E-Commerce: Why Amazon is prepared to conquer the next decade in retail.
Traditional retail or brick and mortar (B&M from here on out) is still the dominant form of consumer spending in the U.S. and will be for some time. As of Q3 2019, total retail spend amounts to $5.4 Trillion dollar for the prior 12 months. E-commerce amounts to merely 11.2% of this amount (on a run rate basis.) While the size remains relatively small, e-commerce is growing in the mid-teens year over year, or now 5% quarter to quarter and the rate of growth is accelerating. The rate of E-commerce growth has doubled in 12 months.
To understand why this is the case, a qualitative evaluation of the differences between the two is critical. B&M requires physical space that is expensive to build and maintain. It requires uniformed, reliable, friendly and knowledgeable staff. It requires the deliberate presentation of inventory and restocking, amounting to a unique challenge to the retailer of determining layout of shelf space, product mix and promotion.
It's costly for the consumer too. They have to drive there, walk in, and find what they are looking for. This requires owning a car or putting up with public transportation. This can take a significant amount of time. There are some hidden costs too, without E-commerce, price discovery is a pain in the ass. Something retailers are keenly aware of. Here's something interesting about humans and economics. In economics, for a long time, we've modeled humans like they're these perfect rational beings. Ideally.. they'll drive down the road to a different store to get 3% off of whatever they're buying. Ideally. And you will do that for a car. But in reality, if it's 3% off a bag of chips, it's not worth the hassle. It's too expensive to go get $.14 of savings when you have to drive another 10 minutes to another grocery, walk in to figure it out if you're actually saving the most money.. consumers don't do that.
Consumers don't engage in price discovery on most of their small dollar purchases, they don't do that with traditional retail, because it's too costly in time and effort. There's too much friction in the trade-off.
The value proposition of E-commerce is that it saves consumers time and money. Getting in the car, loading the kids in the back, driving, parking, and then hunting for what you want, making sure you are getting a fair price, E-commerce throws all of that out the window. The value proposition for retailers too, is that it saves them time and money. There are plenty of retailers currently taking an omni-channel approach to retail, those who want to shop in person get to, those who shop online can do that too.. everybody wins.
Given the advent of mobile computing more than a decade ago, many big box retailers also adopted a price match strategy, if you can find it online for the same price? Best Buy, Micro Center etc. they'll match it to keep you as a customer. But that's the extent of it, try going to Kroger and arguing with the cashier about Albersons having a 3/$5 deal on Frito Lay Potato Chips.. that ain't happening.
Amazon isn't Ecommerce, they are a part of it. Their strategy is different than the whole. They are technically omni-channel. However the little B&M they've done mostly as R&D experiment, more on Whole Foods in a minute. The Amazon E-Commerce thesis is this: At the end of the day, most consumer purchases are commodity purchases. They are small dollar items that are easily replicated. This segment of retail has yet to be disrupted by E-Commerce until now. It overlaps with specialty retail and big box items almost seamlessly from a logistical standpoint. The revenue streams are more stable than specialty retail, and it presents a massive opportunity in the long run.
I had the chance to speak with a finance manager at Frito-Lay (subsidiary of PepsiCo) years back after Amazon bought Whole Foods. Amazon had been attempting for years to get the same products you see in any Kroger or Albertsons onto their platform. For a variety of reasons, PepsiCo would not play ball with Amazon. It amounted to channel conflicts between the big established players vs. the disruptive incumbent. What Pepsico had done to Amazon, had been done by Proctor and Gamble, Nestle, Kellogg, and many more.
The purchase of Whole Foods was a big F U, a "we'll do it live" moment.. a Leeroy Jenkins. So you won't let us into your club? Fine, we'll do it ourselves. Grocer's panicked and for good reason. They were the reason Amazon had been held at bay for so long. They'd used their absolute size for many years to prevent E-commerce retailers from getting the same product mix at the same price online. Amazon responded by entering their territory, in buying a physical grocery chain. Grocer's fear was real and warranted, however the truly brilliant component of this purchase was that Amazon purchased for themselves a supply chain for grocery and private label products (365 brand.) Fast forward a couple years and Amazon now has over four hundred private label brands, more than twenty three thousand individual SKUs and 1.4 Million reviews of these products/brands. That entire article is worth a thorough read. Each product line represents a moonshot where amazon can collect both sides of margin on a private label product that disrupts traditional brands. Often it goes well, sometimes it does not, but the platform allows them to poke holes in each product category, and cannibalize the producer surplus of other more expensive branded product in the process. They don't have to advertise, market or promote any of this either.. yet it's already getting plenty of attention. We normally don't do politics here on investmentDD, but imho if Elisabeth Warren is criticizing a company they must be doing something right.
Here is a compelling example of how Amazon can undercut a premium brand with it's store brand knock off. And there's nothing Allbirds can do about it.
Amazon has built out an infrastructure of warehouses (which are relatively cheaper to maintain on a $/sf basis than traditional B&M retail space) and delivery drivers to meet the daily needs of consumers accustomed to B&M retail. They've disinter-mediated the entire process. You do not need a car, you don't have to be nice to the person behind the counter, or go hunting for that specific product you need on aisle 9, or check to see if the price is competitive or on deal. You can just type it in to your phone in 5 seconds, and see quickly who has the best deal. Turns out (and this is from experience) 9/10 times Amazon has the best deal and they'll ship it that day or the next.
For the consumer, it amounts to savings in both time and money. What the data shows is that we are experiencing rapid change in slow motion. E-commerce is growing explosively here in the U.S. however it's still of relatively small scale, that it will take some time before eclipsing B&M retail. Second, the data shows this rate of growth is accelerating, and has doubled in the last year or so. Traditional retail is not going to disappear entirely either. There are plenty of Amazon proof businesses for now. Hair salons, vets, dentists, nail salons, along with restaurants and apparel to a certain extent.
This online E-commerce platform has allowed Amazon to build out a peripheral advertising business in search. The search component allows Amazon to promote it's own store brand product alongside the branded counterparts. Second, it's able to sell web page space to branded products. Google currently dominates the search game, but Amazon is in 2nd place and stealing market share.
Finally, Amazon has rolled out a wonderful product called Subscribe and Save. Within this platform, Amazon is able to offer 15%-20% savings on everyday commodity items in exchange for a commitment to purchase at a monthly frequency (and it can be cancelled at any time.) What Amazon has discovered is that subscription purchases are relatively sticky. In exchange for a soft commitment from consumers that is relatively stable and predictable, Amazon can actually lower the cost of goods to the consumer. In turn, they are also able to optimize logistically for these sales as they can plan far in advance for them. Second, this allows them to relay demand information to other merchants as well. Example: Amazon can remit data to Tide, and let them know how many pods they expect to need in the coming months based on subscription commitments. Both Tide and Amazon are able to lower CoGS because they have more time to plan for those costs.
Furthermore, if you have an Amazon Credit Card through Chase bank, you get an additional 3%-5% all purchase at Amazon & Whole Foods.
The combination of all of these benefits as a platform amounts is an incredibly compelling value proposition to consumers. As of June this year Amazon has accumulated 105 Million Prime Memberships in the United States, and it is the largest paid subscriber base of any company in the United States period.
One of the luxuries I enjoy in my occupation is that my employer has a very long investment time horizon & high risk tolerance. What this allows is for us to kick back, put our feet on the table and think about what the world will look like in 10 years and how we'd consider being a part of it.
So here's a thought experiment, what do you think the retail experience for consumers looks like in a decade? Here's my prediction. Consumer's buy the vast majority of the things they need online, and they receive it within a few hours to a day, and they're spending less than ever before on what they need. This is already happening, and It's grabbed the attention of people like Jim Cramer, as well as Fed Chairman Jerome Powell. Albeit, E-Commerce is relatively small for now, but the rapid transformation is already causing ripple effects across retail. In 10 years, my thesis is that E-commerce becomes the largest component of total retail sales and Amazon remains the largest component of that segment, as it is today. Additionally, they probably steal share and grow at a faster pace than E-commerce as a whole, as they have done over the last several years.
Personal anecdote:
I'm sitting here in my home office wearing Amazon branded Jeans. I've got 10+ Amazon branded undershirts upstairs, along with 5+ pairs of Amazon Synthetic Golf Shorts. In my house, we've got Amazon branded batteries, note cards & printer paper, detergent pods, echo devices, cameras and more all over the place. There's more too, but I'm not going to list it all. In my experience, what they make is just as good if not better than the branded counterpart, and they do it for less, often a lot less. And I got tired of hyperlinking, so if you're curious, go to amazon.com and start looking around for these products.
Even more, as of now my wife and I spend +$250/mo on subscribe and save items we need for our household, this includes baby formula, diapers and wipes, detergent, shampoo and soap, trash bags, dog food, paper towels and more. We use the 5% back credit card and blended save close to 20% on these daily items we need.
In conclusion, on E-Commerce, I expect Amazon to dominate the next decade in retail. They have a massive competitive advantage over other retailers engaged in an omni-channel strategy, therefore it's their game to lose. Furthermore, their competitive edge today will compound into the future and amount to further share gains and a wider moat in years to come.


Cloud Computing: What is this industry, how does Amazon fit in the picture, and why is it such a big deal?
Again, to understand Amazon you'll have to understand what Cloud Computing is. This is not an everyday consumer product/service, therefore it's foreign to most individuals. Second, because the transactions and services are business to business (B2B) it's relatively difficult to determine detailed industry characteristics. What may come as a surprise to you, is it's the most profitable business segment (on a NOPAT basis) and it's also their fastest growing segment.
Cloud computing is the service of providing storage, services, databases, software, security, analytics, artificial intelligence and infrastructure through the internet. There was a time when most businesses built their own server racks, and maintained their own infrastructure. Amazon too did this for themselves in building out their own infrastructure to maintain their E-Commerce platform. In time, they naturally sold this service to other firms.
So where does Amazon fit in now? From all indications cloud computing appears to be an arms race. The most recent estimates for market share vary depending on the research provider. The differences lie in what is being measured. There are multiple components of Cloud: PaaS, IaaS, and SaaS. By all accounts, Amazon Web Services is the clear market leader, but they aren't growing as fast as some of their well funded peers like Microsoft and Google.
The available literature on Cloud Computing as a whole is vague. There are important questions to answer regarding structural advantage or lack thereof, who has the competitive edge, or what kind of moats have been built. Amazon's slowing growth rate in Cloud is concerning. Ramped spend in R&D + SG&A during the 2019 fiscal year is encouraging, and these investments will reduce erosion of market share.
While Cloud remains Amazon's most profitable business segment for now, by revenue it's just ~12.5% of sales. Admittedly I am troubled by the amount of information I cannot obtain without significantly paying out of pocket. Nevertheless, given the relative size of this business, I'm comfortable putting the pencil down on AWS for now, and watching the industry closely going forward.

Other Business Segments:
Amazon has other business segments like their own B&M retail stores including Whole Foods, it's 4 star retail chain as well as it's cashierless Amazon Go stores. All of these combined are worth little compared to the market cap, while interesting.. they are insignificant in determining Amazon's value as a business.
What is Amazon worth today?
Herein lies the problem for analysts when the look at Amazon. The most commonly used methods for determining value are off the charts, for the most part Amazon looks like lighting money on fire.
https://preview.redd.it/dibyk15zd2a41.png?width=1703&format=png&auto=webp&s=5a153f948f0ac119192ce2089388db00b27850d2
A simple value oriented investor looks at a trailing P/E of 84.19 and thinks why would I wait 84 years to get paid back?

https://preview.redd.it/wfxbhmi5f2a41.png?width=1689&format=png&auto=webp&s=f2764cc6c777a9cae6907decd54b482fc4e76531
Of course, that's too myopic, and value oriented investors who take that approach, quickly learn trailing P/E is the key to building a portfolio of value traps. More sophisticated investors like Joel Greenblatt might recommend using something like ROIC to gauge how much Amazon benefits from reinvesting and building out it's own business.
The problem with that approach is that ROC, ROCE, and ROIC all use some form of GAAP earnings (either NOPAT or EBIT) to backsolve for this return number. If you look at Amazon's Income Statement, and dissect why net income is what it is there's a good reason why most value metrics/ratios don't work for Amazon. They are investing ~3x NOPAT and 60% of Gross profit into R&D. SG&A tells a similar story. What is R&D anyways? One time costs to develop and build out a business. What is SG&A, variable manpower with a significantly lagged ROI when ramped more than 20% YoY.
https://preview.redd.it/iri3zqpqg2a41.png?width=890&format=png&auto=webp&s=20dce3cde510556b96ce27bce8f7666def4ec6dd
What dawned on me months ago is this.. what if Amazon cut it's R&D to 0, and didn't touch SG&A? P/E TTM drops to ~20x. What happens to sales growth then? It slows.. and eventually converges with GDP, and then falls beyond that. The story of what Amazon's business is, especially E-Commerce, helps shed light on how long it'd take for Amazon's growth to converge with GDP, when they're on the cutting edge of the knife, and most other competitors remain far behind.
What do other institutions believe Amazon is worth?

https://preview.redd.it/pfcba6x8j2a41.png?width=482&format=png&auto=webp&s=cef634979c696b6739941fb820c0c35c83a92219
There are 45 Wallstreet Analysts covering the stock. On average, their price target is 2170. Based on the share price today, if they're right, you can expect a 15% return. What if the bears are right? You'll lose ~2% rounding down. And the bulls? the highest estimate is 2550, and represents a 35% premium on the stock.
Here's what Morningstar thinks:

https://preview.redd.it/foeir3exj2a41.png?width=598&format=png&auto=webp&s=f928f1ffedd9da988b92a93795bda232617ab14f
Keep in mind, the last price is a bit dated. Let's pretend Morningstar is right, I like them more than most analysts. You can expect a 22% return.
I don't like wall street analysts, if I did, I wouldn't do this, and I'd just follow their guidance. They are often right, but can be very wrong at times. The problem with wall street analysts is that they are subject to herding, as well as many other behavioral biases and sometimes conflicts of interest.
But assuming they're right, this is an asymmetric long to take, with significant upside today.
I have an estimate for fair value as well. This involves taking the current growth rate for amazon as well as the mean estimate of earnings two years out. However, instead of earnings, I like mean cash flow per share, because it remains undistorted by GAAP adjustments.
Here are the current cash flow per share estimates:
https://preview.redd.it/gfp92jv3l2a41.png?width=773&format=png&auto=webp&s=171a089e394d6f482348d9275f7f6494ef5c9aa8
Here is my valuation model:

https://preview.redd.it/fx4o28ngl2a41.png?width=1694&format=png&auto=webp&s=d4f76fa5c1c539032d9b13f51f7ca41793fb4b34
Bottom left in yellow: that is the implied value of AMZN shares today, based on the discounted free cash flows.
Bottom middle with a red circle around it, those are my assumptions for long term growth rate and EPS 2 years out.. so TTM 2021 cash flows.
This would imply a 63% upside on the share price today.
Now, I don't think anyone is getting 63% today, for AMZN shares. Admittedly I'd be surprised if you got ~$3100 for AMZN shares in a year. Unfortunately.. this business will probably continue to be misunderstood like it has been for many years until they're done reinvesting a significant portion of their gross profit into building the infrastructure that expands their business. However, that cash flow number will become remarkably close to EPS with R&D turned off. When it does, share price will rocket. Instead of this becoming a one time event, I expect convergence will be gradual over time, which makes it a long term hold.
More on valuation:
I was disappointed but not surprised to find I'm not the only one thinking about valuation in this way. The authors take is similar to mine, and he comes to a similar conclusion as well: ~20x P/E TTM. I've gone through everything the VIC has to say about AMZN and most everything should be available to you as non-members as it is dated. I found message 109 especially compelling:

https://preview.redd.it/szf11hc1n2a41.png?width=1221&format=png&auto=webp&s=1dd8d198a4b5b663fe94e605f38bea9479060e38
In Conclusion: I recommend Amazon stock as a long term investment. I believe this is one of the best value propositions available in this market. Regardless of the broader stock market, the secular trends within retail are significant tailwinds to Amazons largest business segment.

Disclaimer: This document is entirely my own work, outside of linked/pictured information above which has been cited. I own a significant amount of AMZN stock personally. I am not responsible for your gains or losses. I may add more information to this document in the future.
Furthermore, feel free to share this write up as you see fit. Please don't share this on Wall Street Bets.
Addendum (1/14/20): The most significant risk to this business is political. The election of either Warren or Sanders in November of this year would most certainly affect valuation for this business in the near term. Whether Amazon is actually harmed by political interference is another story. For now, it appears the odds that either of these candidates receives the nomination is significantly below 50%, furthermore, as of now it appears they would be significantly disadvantaged against the orange man. Consider this tail risk.
submitted by soundofreedom to investmentDD [link] [comments]

gambling winnings are included in gross income only to the extent video

Standard Deduction vs Itemizing in 2019!!  Mark J. Kohler ... How to fill out the new IRS Form 1040 for 2018 ... - YouTube Caring 4 You NCLEX Tutoring - YouTube

Winnings from lotteries and raffles are gambling and therefore are included in gross income. In addition to cash winnings, the taxpayer must include income bonds, cars, houses and other noncash prizes at fair market value. If a state lottery prize is payable in installments, the annual payments and amounts designated as interest on the unpaid balance must be included in gross income. T/F Gambling winnings are included in gross income only to the extent that the winnings exceed gambling losses incurred during the same period. False- Taxpayers must include all gambling winnings for the year in gross income. Hazel received 20 NQOs (each option gives her the right to purchase 10 shares of stock for $7 per share) at the time she started working when the stock price was $14 per Winnings from lotteries and raffles are gambling and therefore are included in gross income. In addition to cash winnings, the taxpayer must include income bonds, cars, houses and other noncash prizes at fair market value. If a state lottery prize is payable in installments, the annual payments and amounts designated as interest on the unpaid balance must be included in gross income. The following rules apply to casual gamblers who aren't in the trade or business of gambling. Gambling winnings are fully taxable and you must report the income on your tax return. Gambling income includes but isn't limited to winnings from lotteries, raffles, horse races, and casinos. It includes cash winnings and the fair market value of prizes, such as cars and trips. Gambling Winnings Included Gross Income Online Casino Real Money Android Usa Legitimate Online Casino 12 Win Mobile Casino Download Best Casino App To Win Real Money World Series Of Poker Online Training Good Online Sports Gambling Sites Harrahs Casino Downtown New Orleans No Deposit Bonus Codes All Slots Casino Pkr Casino No Deposit Bonus Code No Deposit Bonus Codes For Bovada Casino Casino Inclusion of Gambling Income in Gross Income . Income from gambling, [1] lotteries, [2] sweepstake winnings, [3] and card playing [4] are included in gross income. Such income is included in gross income even though it may be exempt from withholding, for example, slot machine winnings. [5] All slot machine winnings must be included in income, not just the winnings reported on Form W-2G. [6] B. Gambling losses are only deductible to the extent of winnings. The winnings must be included in your income, making it $40,500. Gambling losses can only be deducted if you itemize but are not subject to a threshold using 2% of your adjusted gross income ($40,500.) Your deduction is $500 since your winnings weren’t near $1,000 and the cost of the trip isn’t deductible for casual gamblers. Gambling winnings are included in gross income only to the extent that the winnings exceed gambling losses incurred during the same period. FALSE - Taxpayers must include the gross amount of their gambling winnings for the year in gross income. Taxpayers are allowed to deduct their gambling losses to the extent of their gambling winnings, but the losses are usually deductible as miscellaneous the yearly tournament earnings of a professional poker player are required to be included in gross income. While gambling losses are allowable only to the extent of gambling winnings, there is generally no netting of losses against winnings allowed unless an individual’s gambling activity is such that it qualifies as a trade or business. Alternatively, gambling losses can only be claimed as Gambling losses are deductible only to the extent of gambling winnings and are reported as itemized deductions on Schedule A that are not subject to the 2%-of-adjusted-gross-income threshold; therefore, deductions for gambling losses are not among the miscellaneous itemized deductions suspended by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA). If a taxpayer does not itemize, however, gambling

gambling winnings are included in gross income only to the extent top

[index] [1413] [7289] [3863] [6999] [5827] [1239] [2131] [3957] [4885] [9407]

Standard Deduction vs Itemizing in 2019!! Mark J. Kohler ...

SIGN UP for my weekly newsletter now and receive awesome tax and legal tips, upcoming and current tax reforms, deadlines, special offers from my Law Firm and... Bienvenue sur la chaîne YouTube de Boursorama ! Le portail boursorama.com compte plus de 30 millions de visites mensuelles et plus de 290 millions de pages vues par mois, en moyenne. Boursorama ... For tutoring please call 856.777.0840 I am a recently retired registered nurse who helps nursing students pass their NCLEX. I have been a nurse since 1997. I have worked in a lot of nursing fields ... This is your top ten tips for filing your tax return. This is perfect for you if you are filing taxes yourself on TurboTax or any other at home software for ... To see an updated video click here: https://youtu.be/xwUoUKiuwksYou can also follow the link below to get this software. But before you download it please cl...

gambling winnings are included in gross income only to the extent

Copyright © 2024 top.playrealtopmoneygame.xyz