Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Hits $1 Trillion Market Value Milestone (reuters.com)

Posted by msmash on from the aggressive-expansion dept.

Amazon.com on Tuesday became the second U.S. company to reach $1 trillion in stock market value, just weeks after Apple hit the same milestone on Aug. 2. Shares in the world's largest online retailer last traded up 1.4 percent at $2,041.68. Its shares hit the $2050.2677 level to give its stock a value of $1 trillion. From a report: Amazon and Apple, which hit the trillion-dollar milestone on Aug. 2, symbolize the growing influence of tech companies on markets and the economy. The industry is amassing wealth and power, creating a new order in business where the most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data. Not far behind in market value are Google owner Alphabet Inc. and Microsoft Corp. , both approaching $900 billion, while Facebook -- which crossed $500 billion in July 2017, a day after Amazon -- has stalled at those levels amid a data-privacy scandal and growth concerns.

5 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. Monopoly is meaningless? by XXongo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No. I buy nothing from Amazon. Whether they are worth a trillion dollars or they go out of business tomorrow, it is meaningless to me.

    When they drive the last of their competitors out of business, will it still be meaningless to you?

    1. Re:Monopoly is meaningless? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 3, Informative

      For the most part, Amazon is much like a shopping mall chain - most of what they sell is FBA (Fulfilled By Amazon) for 3rd parties, and they take a warehouse/processing/shipping commission on it. Just like the mall owner gets rent (and often a piece of revenue in many places around the world).

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  2. A tale of two P/Es.... by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I find it amusing that with both companies being at a one trillion market cap, AAPL has a P/E ratio of 20, while AMZN has nearly an order of magnitude higher P/E at 185.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:A tale of two P/Es.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      For us readers of Benjamin Graham, today's stock valuations are just nuts. It's like the late 90s again. Folks justify the prices by saying they're paying for growth however; growth never lasts forever - there are always limits.

      Eventually, fundamentals win out in the end. And when they do, the people who ignored them for pie-in-the-sky predictions lose in the end. The years 1929, 1980, 1987, 1990-1991, 2000 and 2008 (and some others) illustrated that.

      I'm starting to see the articles with the theme of "it's different this time" like I saw in 1999.

  3. Monopolies are inefficient by XXongo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If capitalism is so great, why does it allow monopolies to exist?

    Capitalism doesn't really "allow" or "not allow" things. That would be a regulatory scheme.

    Capitalism (or more specifically, free markets) is a system that is efficient on the micro-level (for a certain definition of "efficient".) If the system evolves into a monopoly, however, the free market assumptions no longer hold, and the system is no longer efficient.

    It seems to me that monopolies are the result of executing your capitalistic business plan successfully. In the physics world, monopolies would represent a low entropy state.

    I don't even know what that means. In general, monopolies are a result of entry barriers and economy of scale (which may often be the same: the entry barrier is often because of the economies of scale.)

    Once a large corporation enter the scene, there is also an anticompetitive entry barrier: a larger corporation can simply underprice an upstart competitor, using the strategy that they can simply take a loss until their competition goes bankrupt, and once the competitors are all driven out of business, raise their prices to recoup their losses. Is this "executing a capitalistic business plan successfully"? Well, I suppose.