<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for ColfaxGreeley</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/ColfaxGreeley/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/ColfaxGreeley/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:50:58 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: A look at the Zappos / Amazon Deal</title><link>http://streetcapitalist.com/2009/07/23/a-look-at-the-zappos-amazon-deal/#comment-13225332</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Gross Revenue is ~$1.1b. This includes the revenue of product that was ultimately returned, free of charge (as is the Zappos policy: not sure what size to order? Get both the 10 and the 11 and send back the one that doesn't fit). Net revenue is roughly $700m. Operating Income is estimated by the Wall Street analysts covering AMZN to be between $20-$35m. This deal was done for $885m. This deal was much worse from an accretion / dilution perspective than the 22x P/E to which you refered. That isn't to say it'll end up being a bad deal. Remember, Amazon was just a seller of books online with a cult following. Amazon could have just taken out an incumbent threat and if you like Bezos, you should be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;I have no position in the name&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">ColfaxGreeley</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:50:58 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>