Goldman Sachs gives Barnes and Noble new $14 price target

[plib]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Heh, the people with money to invest are pessimistic.

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


Who should we believe?

I dunno. Let's go with the "market analysts" who brought us the economic boom of the last five years.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

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.

I got that. The Supreme Court case says that in certain cases, suppliers fixing minimum prices could be legal , so an agreement to do it is permissible .

Resale price maintenance may also give consumers more op-tions to choose among low-price, low-service brands; high-price, high-service brands; and brands falling in between. Absent vertical price restraints, retail services that enhance interbrand competition might be under provided because discounting retailers can free ride on retailers who furnish services and then capture some of the demand those services generate. Retail price maintenance can also increase interbrand competition by facilitating market entry for new firms and brands and by encouraging retailer services that would not be provided even absent free riding.

OPINION

The argument would be that independent booksellers furish services and create demand that a discount retailer (Amazon) captures.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I got that. The Supreme Court case says that in certain cases, suppliers fixing minimum prices could be legal , so an agreement to do it is permissible .

A retailer doing it is permissible.
Multiple retailers colluding to do it is not permissible.
Competitors acting in concert to perform an otherwise legal act can be illegal.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

A retailer doing it is permissible.
Multiple retailers colluding to do it is not permissible.
Competitors acting in concert to perform an otherwise legal act can be illegal.

Well, until the Supreme Court says it is permissible

[Fbone]

I guess Goldman Sachs was correct. B&N hit $14 today before falling back to $13.41 an 18.3% gain. Hedge Fund bought 7 million shares which is 12% of the company.
It appears they are a spin-off activist investor. Perhaps, they will encourage Nook separation.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ses-stake.html

[TimW]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I guess Goldman Sachs was correct. B&N hit $14 today before falling back to $13.41 an 18.3% gain. Hedge Fund bought 7 million shares which is 12% of the company.
It appears they are a spin-off activist investor. Perhaps, they will encourage Nook separation.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...ses-stake.html

It certainly sounds that way.

Jana has taken an activist role in publisher McGraw-Hill Cos., proposing a plan last August to break up the company. “This increases the possibility of action,” said Michael Glickstein, chief investment officer of G Asset Management LLC, a Barnes & Noble investor that has pushed for the company to spin off units. “Jana has experience in the publishing space, and a track record in finding value in breakup plays.”

This should be interesting.

[tubemonkey]

Nook Boutiques in high traffic areas, like malls, could do quite well. They could sell ereaders, tablets, accessories, NYT bestsellers, B&N Top 50, seasonal gifts, etc. They could also provide multiple kiosks so patrons could download digital content to their accounts or order DTBs and other physical items to be delivered to their homes. WiFi access would allow direct purchases to their devices. Classes on how to use their devices would also be great to have.

Lots of possibilities. You don't need much floorspace to have a successful business model.