Goldman Sachs gives Barnes and Noble new $14 price target

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by plib

What is the preferred method? Hanging, shooting, decapitation or harakiri?

Loyalty programs, I think.
Book clubs and reading circles wouldn't be a bad idea, though.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

That is the second biggest problem B&N (and other "Big Box" retailers) face.

Fixed that for ya.

C'mon, man. GS downgraded B&N because with Amazon unleashed, they are toast. Even if you refuse to believe it, you might want to face the fact that everyone else believes it.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

C'mon, man. GS downgraded B&N because with Amazon unleashed, they are toast. Even if you refuse to believe it, you might want to face the fact that everyone else believes it.

Well, no.
I'm not alone.
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=441
The apologists might try to drown reality but the sky ain't falling.

B&N's fate is still in their own hands.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

They can't, because the current market value is a digest of the opinion of all stock buyers, the great majority of whom are directly or indirectly getting their information on what the company is worth from said analysts. If the bulk of analysts thought the price was going toward value X, it would already be there.

What I just wrote couldn't be less original -- it seems to me the conventional financial wisdom of professional economists. Before taking any such analysts seriously, read A Random Walk Down Wall Street. (B&N EPUB is US$19.46, and no Kindle edition. I advise used paper or the public library )

Bulk doesn't agree or their clients don't act on their report so it remains below $14. And no one knows what will happen with the DOJ, competitors and new hardware releases.

Interestingly, Fidelity bought (or obtained) 10% off all outstanding shares of B&N last year. Just over 6 million shares to become 3rd largest shareholder with market value of about $14.50/share.

[drofgnal]

I still like going to a B&N store. I do like to browse physical books, even if I only am going to order it for my kindle later. (I don't have a nook.) My store also has an immense collection of DVDs you won't find at any target, BB, or Walmart. What I'm amazed at is they sell them at highway robbery prices. So the times I've spotted a rarity DVD I want to purchase, I go home and order it from amazon. As far as books go I still buy a few now and then, particularly when they are not available on ebook or something, I just have to have in the bookcase.

As far as starting nook boutiques with Starbucks coffee. That wouldn't be any good. I can do that today at a starbucks with free wi-fi.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Well, no.
I'm not alone.
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=441
The apologists might try to drown reality but the sky ain't falling.

B&N's fate is still in their own hands.

Heh, the people with money to invest are pessimistic.

The people without the money or inclination to invest are optimistic.


Who should we believe?

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Bulk doesn't agree or their clients don't act on their report so it remains below $14. And no one knows what will happen with the DOJ, competitors and new hardware releases.

Interestingly, Fidelity bought (or obtained) 10% off all outstanding shares of B&N last year. Just over 6 million shares to become 3rd largest shareholder with market value of about $14.50/share.

Obvously, Fidelity had no pipeline to the DOJ decision makers. With agency, BN had could have turned things around in time, maybe even expanded overseas. All of that is out the window now. Shatzkin sez:

To Barnes & Noble, it would mean they have to devote cash resources to ebook discounting that they might have preferred to dedicate to further development of the Nook platform, maintaining the most robust possible brick-and-mortar presence, and improving the user experience at BN.com. Unconfirmed stories abound that B&N is about to announce an international expansion. Whether that will produce cash flow immediately or require it for a while is not yet known. For B&N’s sake, it would always better if it were the former, but if they’re about to fight discounting wars, it might be critical.

LINK

[6charlong]

Suppose the publishers drop DRM. Obviously it doesn't protect either the publishers or the authors, but it forces customers to buy all their ebooks from the store their reading device came from.

It seems reasonable that if Amazon dominance of the market is a problem for the publishers then they should have a coincidence of interests with shops like B&N to take that lever away from Amazon.

B&N and the rest would have to offer books in both ePub and Mobi format to get this to help in the short run. In the long run it might help ween people away from the Kindle over to better devices. And of course Amazon is a powerful competitor on many levels so something like that might have no effect on Kindle buyers anyway.

Oh well.

[pl001]

Originally Posted by drofgnal

I still like going to a B&N store. I do like to browse physical books, even if I only am going to order it for my kindle later. (I don't have a nook.) My store also has an immense collection of DVDs you won't find at any target, BB, or Walmart. What I'm amazed at is they sell them at highway robbery prices. So the times I've spotted a rarity DVD I want to purchase, I go home and order it from amazon. As far as books go I still buy a few now and then, particularly when they are not available on ebook or something, I just have to have in the bookcase.

If you like having the store there, why don't you purchase more things from them? Do you think creating that environment you like is free?

I just don't understand some people's logic. If you like something, support it. If you are unwilling to do so, don't whine when it closes.

/rant off

I apologize for singling out your post, but I see this attitude on display often and it really irritates me.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by pl001

If you like having the store there, why don't you purchase more things from them? Do you think creating that environment you like is free?

I just don't understand some people's logic. If you like something, support it. If you are unwilling to do so, don't whine when it closes.

/rant off

I apologize for singling out your post, but I see this attitude on display often and it really irritates me.

It's the showroom problem . BN and independent bookssellers work hard to create a great customer experience at their stores, and Amazon benefits. Somehow, the DOJ missed all this background.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by stonetools

It's the showroom problem . BN and independent bookssellers work hard to create a great customer experience at their stores, and Amazon benefits. Somehow, the DOJ missed all this background.

It is irrelevant.
The DOJ aren't conducting an broad investigation into the book publishing business.
They are conducting an investigation into the allegedly illegal collusion between publishing houses to change retail policy in concert.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

It is irrelevant.
The DOJ aren't conducting an broad investigation into the book publishing business.
They are conducting an investigation into the allegedly illegal collusion between publishing houses to change retail policy in concert.

To *raise* consumer prices.

Everything else is a smokescreen.
It doesn't matter why the mobster robs a bank, just that he put a gun to the teller's head. He may be a drug adict or abused in childhood or just plain bored; either way he'll be convicted and sent to jail.

Conspiring to raise consumer prices is a crime; just ask the Random House legal staff.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

It is irrelevant.
The DOJ aren't conducting an broad investigation into the book publishing business.
They are conducting an investigation into the allegedly illegal collusion between publishing houses to change retail policy in concert.

Actually, its not. THe Supreme Court in 2007 specifically cited the "showroom effect" (not in those words) in its deciasion holding that resale price maintainence was permissible in certain circumstances.

Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007), is a US antitrust case in which the United States Supreme Court reversed the 96-year-old doctrine that vertical price restraints were illegal per se under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, replacing the older doctrine with the rule of reason.

You can bet this caseis going to play a big part in the defense case going forward

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Actually, its not. THe Supreme Court in 2007 specifically cited the "showroom effect" (not in those words) in its deciasion holding that resale price maintainence was permissible in certain circumstances.

You are still missing the point.
It isn't that an Agency type agreement is illegal, it isn't.
What is illegal is for multiple publishers to collude in simultaneously introducing one.
That has nothing to do with Amazon's policies, good or bad.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Stock closed up 1.3% Monday (S&P flat) to $10.92.

3 Analysts rate a buy
1 underweight
2 sell
2 hold

Doesn't look like the analysts have a clear idea of the company's future.

Today B&N stock went up 2.11% to $11.15 a share.