Amazon has a gap to fill with their pe ratio

[jackg]

For me, generally, going off pe ratios a healthy number is 10-15 + net assets/share mktcp. I was looking at amazons stocks and their pe ratio is 115... I don't know how much of the market people think its going to dominate but they're already pretty huge sales wise (even though I think retail is mostly making a loss), with their data centres factored in, assuming they're not on lease, then this would probably generously put their pe ratio near Microsoft at 30...

Additional point: the huge growth could also be why amazon don't really mention bitcoin very much and don't honour it as a payment option because bezos knows they're quite oversold...

[1714813769]

1714813769

[1714813769]

1714813769

[1714813769]

1714813769

[1714813769]

1714813769

[suchmoon]

I don't know about that... back when the stock price was like $70 or $80 (2007 maybe?) I thought the same thing, P/E around 100, no way this book store can justify that. Pissed away my chance of early retirement right there.

Don't underestimate the cloud thing. They're already dominating it and there's still shitloads of legacy datacenters that will move to AWS when their hardware/software upgrade cycle comes due. Some of it might be hastened by the pandemic - old-school in-house setups often don't handle all those remote workers well.

I doubt there is any deep meaning in Amazon's lack of support for Bitcoin. They don't take any other payment options either (like PayPal), just their own payment processing. Probably not worth the hassle for the extra revenue it could bring, if any.

[adaseb]

Do any of these stock prices make any sense to you? Especially the NASDAQ 100. I think what is happening is that many people are bored at home so they get a Robinhood account and just buy pretty much everything out of boredom.

If you look at robintrack.net you can clearly see that during the start of the stock market crash there was tons of people buying pretty much any stock. The curve went up exponentially, this is similar to what happened with bitcoin and crypto in 2017. However people are forgetting that jobs are getting lost and tomorrow they are expecting again 2.1 million unemployment claims, sure the figure is down but its still a huge amount.

I think we might break the ATHs and then head back down to the 2200 area on the SP500X.

[sheenshane]

IMO, Amazon's P/E ratio is 115 and I don't think it's a problem. As we all know that the stock market is indeed unstable, its value probably rises and may fall. And if we check that when the value and price of the stock market are below its natural price many people buy a larger share of the stock market because they know that its price and value can rise again and again next time (no specific time). Due to the ups and downs of the stock market, many stockholders want to get a bigger share while it is still low.

Probably this might be correlated with the massive of Bitcoin price back then (2017).

Just my two sats!

[Tytanowy Janusz]

P/E is that high (not only for Amazon) because people forget what investing in shares is. They are too blinded with TA and crowd psychology. It will pop one day and everyone will open their eyes seeing how irrational that was and how it was ment to pop (like any other bubble).

Investor decision should be like that:
1- how much is it worth (book value)?
2- how big ROI (ROI from investment not from price grow)
3- how high risk?
4- what's risk/reward ratio.
....
n- what is the macroeconomic situation

How it looks like:
1- trend line
2- moving average
3- dream about lambo
...
n- buy buy ... because it is growing ... i could be a millionaire if I bought 5-10 year ago

Second approach made investing in stocks nothing more than Ponzi Shame (you are buying shares - that gives you nothing - and you earn if there will be more buyers like you in the future) and that's what Amazon shares are.

Yes we can try to estimate how much will Amozon earn in future and how this will cool down P/E but it will still be a Ponzi Shame to me because you will earn only if more buyers will come (your reward/prift is based on amount of new inwestors and money that they will bring not on company income). Its not gasprom that share it's profit with investors (4-9% ROI annually). Where you actually invest in company and it's income not in it's brand and hype that will bring more investors in future.

"I invested in Amazon in 2020" - it's oxymoron to me. You are speculating on Ponzi Scheme not investing... No matter if its Amazon or any other 0 ROI paper with P/E > 20

Meanwhile we have here BNB with:
P/E ratio - 4,5! - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208144.msg53299809#msg53299809
up to 60% quantitative ROI - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208144.msg53361035#msg53361035 while still being deflationary coin.

[jackg]

Second approach made investing in stocks nothing more than Ponzi Shame (you are buying shares - that gives you nothing - and you earn if there will be more buyers like you in the future) and that's what Amazon shares are.

Yes we can try to estimate how much will Amozon earn in future and how this will cool down P/E but it will still be a Ponzi Shame to me because you will earn only if more buyers will come (your reward/prift is based on amount of new inwestors and money that they will bring not on company income). Its not gasprom that share it's profit with investors (4-9% ROI annually). Where you actually invest in company and it's income not in it's brand and hype that will bring more investors in future.

"I invested in Amazon in 2020" - it's oxymoron to me. You are speculating on Ponzi Scheme not investing... No matter if its Amazon or any other 0 ROI paper with P/E > 20

Meanwhile we have here BNB with:
P/E ratio - 4,5! - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208144.msg53299809#msg53299809
up to 60% quantitative ROI - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5208144.msg53361035#msg53361035 while still being deflationary coin.

I've seen broadcasting companies have their pe ratios cut to 2 or 3 with high revenues, and generally 15% margins... Their revenue is normally half their entire market cap which is ridiculous for their price - and you really think stakeholders in these firms aren't going to make rivals to Netflix and amazon prime or at least ensure some of the historic products are making high royalties... Most of these companies make their money on royalties so...

But yeah treadlines and emas, to me, is just betting on air. Even with bitcoin, you're better off looking at volume and rsi.

Lighting and electric companies have a pe around 6 and these are people that do specialist parts of the markets thst won't quickly be replaced...

@adaseb yeah the spx is due quite a huge fall... I don't know if you've looked at funds like vanguards value, and the European (non UK) stock markets, they've all had their profits shaved even before this so the S&P may do the same and I don't know how much that'll affect the European and Asian markets too...


I mentioned Microsoft an no one seemed to take the bait with azure being included that is clearly worth quite a bit less than amazon... Microsoft on the other hand don't actually charge subscriptions to students afaik so have a market to expand into if they needed to (and I don't think they charge universities if they can provide their own servers but I'm not sure on the arrangement there)...

[mk4]

I do agree that most of their future potential growth are already priced in, but growth companies such as Amazon having high pe ratios isn't really anything new. Even FB had the same level of pe ratio in 2015, simply because it was still growing really really fast.


source: https://ycharts.com/companies/FB/pe_ratio

Same thing with Amazon. The pe ratio will unexpectedly be really really high due to their growth not slowing down as Bezos is still going ham on their acquisitions(Twitch in 2014, Whole Foods in 2018, etc) also knowing that it's highly likely for Amazon to acquire new businesses due to the quite recent stock market crash; and simply due to the fact that they could still expand their eCommerce division to a lot more countries.

As for Microsoft, which is definitely also a growth company, is growing significantly slower. But I'd say MSFT is probably a "safer" investment.

As for Amazon and bitcoin, I think it's simply due to the fact that the people who are planning on using bitcoin for payments is minuscule. Probably not worth the effort as of the moment.

[suchmoon]

I mentioned Microsoft an no one seemed to take the bait with azure being included that is clearly worth quite a bit less than amazon... Microsoft on the other hand don't actually charge subscriptions to students afaik so have a market to expand into if they needed to (and I don't think they charge universities if they can provide their own servers but I'm not sure on the arrangement there)...

Microsoft is a dinosaur that hasn't had a new idea in decades, if ever. Their heroin (Visual Studio) allows them to hook young lazy developers and their SDKs and DevOps etc isn't horrible... not great but just enough to keep the momentum going. But arguably AWS does a lot of Microsoft-y things (like hosting SQL Server) better than Microsoft. Same with Oracle, another dinosaur that couldn't innovate itself out of a wet Amazon box.

This has fuck all to do with the stock price of course. I doubt that Wall Street bozos know the difference between C# and SQL. They just think that some people like Bezos or Musk can do no wrong.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

High growth (or perceived high growth) = high P/E.  That's the way it's always been, for better or for worse.  If Amazon were to have a P/E of 15 right now, it would mean their income was stable and had exhausted all of their growth avenues--and they'd probably be paying a dividend as well.  I get that a P/E over 100 might sound ridiculous, but companies that at least appear to have the potential of great expansion have traditionally always traded with high multiples like that.

Obviously that does make buying Amazon stock a hell of a lot riskier than an older, more stable company with a lower P/E--but with high risk often comes high reward. 

I don't know about that... back when the stock price was like $70 or $80 (2007 maybe?) I thought the same thing, P/E around 100, no way this book store can justify that. Pissed away my chance of early retirement right there.

Yeah, I was around way back when, when internet startup stocks were all the rage and I'm sure I could have gotten in early, but I don't think I ever would have predicted Amazon to get to be as dominant as where it is today--even after they stopped selling just books. 

The problem with companies like them are that if they have a bad quarter, their stock is going to drop massively.  That P/E over 100 isn't entirely rational.  It was driven that high by hopes for the future.

[exstasie]

Do any of these stock prices make any sense to you? Especially the NASDAQ 100. I think what is happening is that many people are bored at home so they get a Robinhood account and just buy pretty much everything out of boredom.

If you look at robintrack.net you can clearly see that during the start of the stock market crash there was tons of people buying pretty much any stock. The curve went up exponentially, this is similar to what happened with bitcoin and crypto in 2017. However people are forgetting that jobs are getting lost and tomorrow they are expecting again 2.1 million unemployment claims, sure the figure is down but its still a huge amount.

I think we might break the ATHs and then head back down to the 2200 area on the SP500X.

Epic if true. It's not impossible but I think Wall Street will shit all over retail well before another ATH. The SPX March pivot high is in the 3,130s. The 0.786 retracement of the crash is there as well. 0.886 around 3,260. Interesting levels to watch.

This is going to end badly:

Robintrack, a third-party website that monitors top stocks on popular trading start-up Robinhood, shows Ford and General Electric as the most bought names on that platform. Aurora Cannabis, Delta Air Lines, Carnival, and GoPro were among the top ten.

Participation in these stocks is up roughly 120% in just the last two months, according to DataTrek. GoPro, a stock which trades at $4, has seen a more than 50% increase in holdings since March 1, while holdings of GE and Ford have roughly doubled.

“The rush of retail investors into U.S. equities is at least partly a function of a world with no casinos, no sports betting to speak of, and little to do outside the home,” DataTrek co-founder Nick Colas said. “The dopamine rush of a full house is the same as holding a hat-sized stock into an up 3% open on the S&P.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/22/gamblers-pivot-to-stock-trading-during-lockdowns---barstools-portnoy-revives-old-e-trade-account.html

[buwaytress]

I don't know about that... back when the stock price was like $70 or $80 (2007 maybe?) I thought the same thing, P/E around 100, no way this book store can justify that. Pissed away my chance of early retirement right there.

Don't underestimate the cloud thing. They're already dominating it and there's still shitloads of legacy datacenters that will move to AWS when their hardware/software upgrade cycle comes due. Some of it might be hastened by the pandemic - old-school in-house setups often don't handle all those remote workers well.

I doubt there is any deep meaning in Amazon's lack of support for Bitcoin. They don't take any other payment options either (like PayPal), just their own payment processing. Probably not worth the hassle for the extra revenue it could bring, if any.

I was worse, in a sense. A bit upset that Amazon had killed off my then favourite Barnes and Noble (I used them to source a lot of small stores across the US from the 1990s and early 2000s) and I thought it was definitely a bubble. Not that I could have bought stocks, but there were all kinds of derivatives I could have gone in.

And agree it's not saying anything about Bitcoin, it's really a strategy of: if people need something, we'll build it so they use ours. It's worked well for Alibaba -- from shipping, to warehousing, to payment, to insurance, marketplace, they just made sure no business was lost to competitors.

I really don't see Bitcoin bringing them more value -- at the moment.

[jackg]

On the point of PayPal not being accepted into amazon, does that not make sense? Amazon are trying to sell their credit card and so are ebay? Also paypal can take longer than amazon checkout and amazon are hoping people don't try to chage their order and get charged the most (I've had it where it has taken a really long time to change shipping from one day to free - don't think it's coincidental)... And Ebay have a p/e of 8...

Microsoft is a dinosaur that hasn't had a new idea in decades, if ever. Their heroin (Visual Studio) allows them to hook young lazy developers and their SDKs and DevOps etc isn't horrible... not great but just enough to keep the momentum going. But arguably AWS does a lot of Microsoft-y things (like hosting SQL Server) better than Microsoft. Same with Oracle, another dinosaur that couldn't innovate itself out of a wet Amazon box.

This has fuck all to do with the stock price of course. I doubt that Wall Street bozos know the difference between C# and SQL. They just think that some people like Bezos or Musk can do no wrong.

IBM are pretty similar in this regard too. With microsoft, they lost their innovator as Bill Gates sold most of his stock for other companies and started working on philanthropy instead (or some subset of it).

As for Microsoft, which is definitely also a growth company, is growing significantly slower. But I'd say MSFT is probably a "safer" investment.

Yeah they're all pretty stable at a p/e of 30 and look to have been for a while now although still might be a little inflated.

Robintrack, a third-party website that monitors top stocks on popular trading start-up Robinhood, shows Ford and General Electric as the most bought names on that platform. Aurora Cannabis, Delta Air Lines, Carnival, and GoPro were among the top ten.

Participation in these stocks is up roughly 120% in just the last two months, according to DataTrek. GoPro, a stock which trades at $4, has seen a more than 50% increase in holdings since March 1, while holdings of GE and Ford have roughly doubled.

“The rush of retail investors into U.S. equities is at least partly a function of a world with no casinos, no sports betting to speak of, and little to do outside the home,” DataTrek co-founder Nick Colas said. “The dopamine rush of a full house is the same as holding a hat-sized stock into an up 3% open on the S&P.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/22/gamblers-pivot-to-stock-trading-during-lockdowns---barstools-portnoy-revives-old-e-trade-account.html

I recently put some money into RDS (shell) assuming the dutch or british government will bail them out if they make a loss (although bailed out companies take a long time to start to perform again) but I thought they'd be an interesting watch with a few $... The aviation industry is going to see a huge hit from this and I don't think many young airlines have an established strategy that isn't: take a loan to buy the planes, use the passengers to pay staff and interest and take a small profit and pay off the rest of the loan when you sell the plane...

Most aerospace companies have seen a drop by half and I'm still seeing a lot of advice on helping physical scientists get into an aviation career so it potentially isn't too harsh of a problem (but also, the P/E ratio of rolls royce - of whom most profits come from aero engine sales - managed to hit 1.6 which is just incredible! Falling from 1000cents (us) to ~350)

Carnival are eithergoing to do poorly from this or nothing because P&O, when I've been on them, are great at trying to keep an old ship going for as long as possible - meaning their biggest expenditure was probably huge amounts of fuel although maybe this means it hasn't been profitible for a while...

Yeah, I was around way back when, when internet startup stocks were all the rage and I'm sure I could have gotten in early, but I don't think I ever would have predicted Amazon to get to be as dominant as where it is today--even after they stopped selling just books. 

The problem with companies like them are that if they have a bad quarter, their stock is going to drop massively.  That P/E over 100 isn't entirely rational.  It was driven that high by hopes for the future.

There's always the reminder that past growth doesn't account for future growth and it probably isn't going to be wrong in this case...  If amazon continue as they did since 2007 then in 13 years, they'll be worth $37 trillion https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/market-cap...

A value like that is either unfeasible or would be quite a problem for the US government and the rest of the world to be able to control (I'm fairly sure that's more than the S&P 500 is worth and more than the GDPs of the Big 5 countries, it'd also mean they'd have to match the cumulative GDP of the UK and Germany every year to remain sustainable unless they have a huge p/e still)

[exstasie]

Most aerospace companies have seen a drop by half and I'm still seeing a lot of advice on helping physical scientists get into an aviation career so it potentially isn't too harsh of a problem (but also, the P/E ratio of rolls royce - of whom most profits come from aero engine sales - managed to hit 1.6 which is just incredible! Falling from 1000cents (us) to ~350)

Carnival are eithergoing to do poorly from this or nothing because P&O, when I've been on them, are great at trying to keep an old ship going for as long as possible - meaning their biggest expenditure was probably huge amounts of fuel although maybe this means it hasn't been profitible for a while...

Airliners and aerospace supply look fundamentally weak. Cruise lines too, I don't see a robust recovery there for some years, at least as long as the pandemic persists.

When the data shows retail investors are piling into these questionable sectors at the same time Warren Buffett is exiting, you have to wonder: is retail buying Wall Street's bags?

Why Is Warren Buffett Selling So Many Stocks?

[suchmoon]

There's always the reminder that past growth doesn't account for future growth and it probably isn't going to be wrong in this case...  If amazon continue as they did since 2007 then in 13 years, they'll be worth $37 trillion https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/market-cap...

It'd be interesting to look back at this post in 2033 if we're still around. Total IT spending is ~$3 trillion worldwide. I just googled that number up so I can't vouch for what's included in it but let's say Amazon could get 20% of that pie plus the pie grows to $10 trillion over the next 13 years. That's $2 trillion for Amazon and let's say they can squeeze out a 15% margin so about 1/3 of a trillion net earnings... $37 trillion marketcap would be P/E just north of 100.

Right now Amazon has ~1% if that $3 trillion pie. Not sure about AWS margins.

Anyway, fantasies aside - I think it would take a ruthless dedicated competitor (like Alibaba mentioned above) to dethrone Amazon.

[pixie85]

Airliners and aerospace supply look fundamentally weak. Cruise lines too, I don't see a robust recovery there for some years, at least as long as the pandemic persists.

When the data shows retail investors are piling into these questionable sectors at the same time Warren Buffett is exiting, you have to wonder: is retail buying Wall Street's bags?

Why Is Warren Buffett Selling So Many Stocks?

I'd rather say if they continue to call it a pandemic. There's too little death cases to be calling it a real pandemic and to justify the destruction of tourism and transport.

I also think it will take some time for them to recover even if all the restrictions are lifted next month but those who survive will have an easy time making money a year from now because the competition will mostly be out of the picture.

Warren missed some money trains in his life especially in tech sector. He has so much money that he can play it safe and still make more. His exit doesn't mean the stock will get destroyed in the next few months.

[jackg]

I'd rather say if they continue to call it a pandemic. There's too little death cases to be calling it a real pandemic and to justify the destruction of tourism and transport.

I also think it will take some time for them to recover even if all the restrictions are lifted next month but those who survive will have an easy time making money a year from now because the competition will mostly be out of the picture.

Warren missed some money trains in his life especially in tech sector. He has so much money that he can play it safe and still make more. His exit doesn't mean the stock will get destroyed in the next few months.

They have exposure to some technology with a large stake in apple. I think he made a failing in not believing in diversification as he could've picked up or could pick up now a stake in companies like dell or up which are really undervalued and dell have a very good rating for support among a lot of its loyal customers...

It'd be interesting to look back at this post in 2033 if we're still around. Total IT spending is ~$3 trillion worldwide. I just googled that number up so I can't vouch for what's included in it but let's say Amazon could get 20% of that pie plus the pie grows to $10 trillion over the next 13 years. That's $2 trillion for Amazon and let's say they can squeeze out a 15% margin so about 1/3 of a trillion net earnings... $37 trillion marketcap would be P/E just north of 100.

Right now Amazon has ~1% if that $3 trillion pie. Not sure about AWS margins.

Anyway, fantasies aside - I think it would take a ruthless dedicated competitor (like Alibaba mentioned above) to dethrone Amazon.

Yeah I think alibaba and another Chinese company I forget the name of would be capable of reducing amazon however their shipping fees to Europe are extremely expensive, whereas amazon's are factored into the pricing already. I don't know if alibaba has a logistics firm too, amazon could expand theirs further...

Airliners and aerospace supply look fundamentally weak. Cruise lines too, I don't see a robust recovery there for some years, at least as long as the pandemic persists.

When the data shows retail investors are piling into these questionable sectors at the same time Warren Buffett is exiting, you have to wonder: is retail buying Wall Street's bags?

Why Is Warren Buffett Selling So Many Stocks?

Imagine the reputation he'd have if he held 3 companies into bankruptcy from it selling? Berkshire is a bit overvalued he might end up being delisted as the ceo if he did something like that and lost so much...

Those holdings can't have been so much either, I make it 600 million out of around a 400 bn market cap which I'd say means they have 100bn at least in holdings. Buffet has previously promised his investors he'll attempt to buy back more shares which could be what he's rasing these funds for...

Insurance companies are also meant to be risk averse and have strategies, it may have just broke one of their predefined targets he has... Economists focus on algorithms as well as judgement to decide what a stock may do, these are similar to ta and are only probably accurate 90% of the time in calculating a risk factor - and more risk brings more reward POTENTIAL.

[exstasie]

Airliners and aerospace supply look fundamentally weak. Cruise lines too, I don't see a robust recovery there for some years, at least as long as the pandemic persists.

When the data shows retail investors are piling into these questionable sectors at the same time Warren Buffett is exiting, you have to wonder: is retail buying Wall Street's bags?

Why Is Warren Buffett Selling So Many Stocks?

I'd rather say if they continue to call it a pandemic. There's too little death cases to be calling it a real pandemic and to justify the destruction of tourism and transport.

What is your rationale for that? My understanding is pandemics are defined by their pervasiveness, not their deadliness. As far as deaths go, COVID-19 is now surpassing yearly estimates for deaths from influenza epidemics. The differences here are that this disease is far more contagious, and the seasonal flu is limited to the winter months while COVID-19 infections continues to rise into the summer:



Which makes it look like a pandemic similar to the Spanish Flu, in which the second wave was much more pervasive and deadly than the first.

I also think the number of deaths is drastically under counted. We know the Chinese numbers are outright bullshit. Add on a zero or 2 to everything their government allows to be published. In the US, overall death rates have dramatically risen but deaths are only being attributed to the corona virus with a conclusive test, and bodies aren't being tested unless a patient was previously hospitalized. There are many other examples. In Nicaragua the government claims there have only been a handful of deaths, and yet:

In Chinandega, fear has deepened in recent days, a combination of more frequent sightings of the white-suited men in pickups and recent deaths of a couple of well-known local figures.

“There’s a lot of nervousness here,” said university student Pablo Antonio Alvarado, mentioning a couple acquaintances in Chinandega he heard were infected. “They say we’re the epicenter of the pandemic, like Wuhan in China.”

He described the white-suited men riding with coffins in pickups as looking like “astronauts.” The Chinandega doctor said they were hospital orderlies given the task of quickly disposing of the dead.

Ordoñez was left with more questions than answers about his father’s death. “The doctor told me (the virus) was dangerous,” while also insisting the elder Ordoñez didn’t have it, he said.

“I didn’t bury him, they buried him,” Ordoñez said. “And before, they had buried others, at dawn, because beside him there were seven or eight more graves.”

https://apnews.com/66f68c43e6412314a06ab4a2d0e4779d

This is exactly what happened during the Spanish Flu epidemic. In the context of WWI, every government except neutral Spain lied about how bad it was.

Anyway that's the context. I don't see any boon coming for tourism, travel, or live entertainment in the near future. The number of people willing to be in crowded and confined spaces for prolonged periods of time has plummeted for the foreseeable future. Only the conspiracy nut crowd and those who have no concern for infecting loved ones don't care about these risks, and we'll see how those people feel if/when a second wave occurs.

[jackg]

I think someone mentioned on here that bnb had a pe ratio of 4.5, it might be interesting to know (or now) that grayscale looks to have the same based on what Google says about its bitcoin fund but I don't know how it got its ratio for that...

Anyway on the topic of binance, I think 3-7 is quite generous since its pretty new - the crypto spaces are greatly prone to regulation problems...

[exstasie]

I think someone mentioned on here that bnb had a pe ratio of 4.5, it might be interesting to know (or now) that grayscale looks to have the same based on what Google says about its bitcoin fund but I don't know how it got its ratio for that...

Anyway on the topic of binance, I think 3-7 is quite generous since its pretty new - the crypto spaces are greatly prone to regulation problems...

P/E ratio doesn't make sense on a fund that tracks a commodity, like GBTC. The P/E listed Google is just gibberish. It doesn't address expected earnings. What matters to GBTC is the price of BTC.

Someone did an analysis 2 months ago saying BNB had a P/E ratio of 5.27: https://medium.com/block42-blockchain-company/what-is-the-fair-price-of-a-binance-coin-bnb-52bd40945b34

More or less checks out since Binance burns tokens based on earnings.

[pixie85]

Airliners and aerospace supply look fundamentally weak. Cruise lines too, I don't see a robust recovery there for some years, at least as long as the pandemic persists.

When the data shows retail investors are piling into these questionable sectors at the same time Warren Buffett is exiting, you have to wonder: is retail buying Wall Street's bags?

Why Is Warren Buffett Selling So Many Stocks?

I'd rather say if they continue to call it a pandemic. There's too little death cases to be calling it a real pandemic and to justify the destruction of tourism and transport.

What is your rationale for that? My understanding is pandemics are defined by their pervasiveness, not their deadliness. As far as deaths go, COVID-19 is now surpassing yearly estimates for deaths from influenza epidemics. The differences here are that this disease is far more contagious, and the seasonal flu is limited to the winter months while COVID-19 infections continues to rise into the summer:

Does it mean that ilnesses that linger for a long time without a large number of deaths are all pandemics? In that case HIV would be a poandemic.

I also think the number of deaths is drastically under counted. We know the Chinese numbers are outright bullshit. Add on a zero or 2 to everything their government allows to be published. In the US, overall death rates have dramatically risen but deaths are only being attributed to the corona virus with a conclusive test, and bodies aren't being tested unless a patient was previously hospitalized. There are many other examples. In Nicaragua the government claims there have only been a handful of deaths, and yet:

It also could be the other way round if the info about how the victims are counted is true. I'm talking about people who died with COVID19 in their bloodstream. In most countries they were counted as COVID19 victims and nobody bothered to determine the real cause of death. Many hospitals isolate patients with covid19 and if they die for any reasons the bodies are cremated right away.

I'm not saying you are not right about the number of deaths but you could be wrong and the real numbers could be much lower.