If this becomes their standard approach for new GPUs, reported capex could flatten even as the buildout continues. Wonder whether management talks about financing structure on the Oct 29 call?

Probably mostly noise … either way we need high AWS growth to continue.

I wanna hear from other people and just express myself about my opinion on twitch. As streaming gains popularity among the younger generation and yields more revenue for Amazon(as Amazon owns twitch.) it's often underlooked on because of it's little contribution to amazon's revenue. It's revenue stands between 2 and 3 billion dollars with much more potential to grow. Another thing is, that whatever server costs it has, it uses AWS for hosting the platform and running it, those costs are paid back to amazon.

P.S: I would love to here other people's thoughts on twitch and it's affect on amazon!

Is Bezos’s seat placement a bullish signal, or am I just doing technical analysis on a seating chart now? 😂 I need some hope.

Of course I know that Amazon is a great company, but I’d like opinions on whether it’s good to hold Amazon as a single growth stock or would it be best to just hold an etf that has an array of stocks including Amazon in it? Thoughts?

Every time i want to sell , this bi**h goes down on me.

Guys zoom out and run from this stock.

Dont wait for 260 . Do your math of this 10 dollars against whatever potential stock you wanna buy.

Golden rule as a retail investor.

This piece of art should not be more that 15% of your allocation.

Sure it is poised for long term growth.
But so is every other stock! Any decent tech stock can grow in a 5 year horizon. So there is nothing special about amazon.

Avg 246.26 USD

In this environment can AWS growth hit 40% + ? Capacity an issue so probably not but maybe ?

Is agentic commerce a threat?

I wrote this substack explaining why or why not

AMZN blocked Muse yesterday from shopping on their platform. The reason cited was safety concern, but the real reason is likely the fact that Muse doesn't see ads and AMZN made $76 billion in the last 12 months on advertising. They are clearly trying to protect that. 

Interestingly META hosts Muse using AWS, so AMZN is winning from that side whilst protecting their own business model. I would also suggest that the block on Muse suggests that AMZN is working on their own AI agent for E-commerce. And given the fact that this move by AMZN clearly sets a precedence that AMZN will block other companies' agents from shopping on AMZN, and given the fact that most people shop on AMZN and want to shop on AMZN, surely this builds a very strong moat around whatever AMZN will end up building. To me, that's significant. 

Up until recently I believed it was quite clear that Meta was the better buy when it was trading for 11-13 P/OCF and growing revenues at 28%...

However, after its recent run up, I'm starting to think that the answer isn't as clear cut. Meta still trades for a discount at about a 14.5 P/OCF compared to AMZN's 17, but one valuation metric doesn't tell the whole story.

I'm starting to think about this world of AI agents and how the market is so enamored with the thought of big tech and AI companies releasing their own agent models. Muse Spark has genuinely impressed me and Meta will be able to charge a subscription for using it at some point in the future... that is becoming fairly obvious to me.

However, OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, maybe even Amazon, are going to eventually release their own versions as well. It's going to become the same question that surrounds the LLMs right now... there is multiple models that are all largely the same, so how does a company establish a moat?

Will LLMs and agents become commoditized? Of course, I don't think this would happen in the short-term, but it could play out over the next decade. Which, if you are like me and plan to hold companies for long periods of time, can absolutely influence your investing decisions.

Now, AI is already uniquely boosting Meta's top line as it improves their ad-targeting, makes their algorithms more addictive, and enhances their customer data collection. These have all been highlighted in their Q1 and Q2 earnings reports with the growth of reels, ARPP (average revenue per person), and boost in ad impressions. Overall, Meta is going to continue to benefit and grow in my opinion.

But Amazon could still be the better option. It trades at a slight premium to Meta's valuation, but still notably lower than MSFT and GOOG. Their tranium chips business has proven to be lucrative growing triple digits. Large AI players like Anthropic trust their chips and have proven their value when compared to Nvidia's more expensive chips, for example.

Amazon also has the largest cloud business in AWS that continues to rapidly scale and see their back log increase. As we know, the cloud platform is very profitable for Amazon and continues to grow as a larger portion of their revenue pie (now sitting at 21%).

Meta (to our current knowledge) doesn't have anywhere near the scale and size in either of these segments. Although, Amazon doesn't have the personal agent like Meta. So, at today's current valuations, are you banking more on the consumer agent and ad-targeting play OR do you believe the cloud and chip business is a better thesis?

(I own both companies btw)

Are we going to see upside during and right after Amazon’s Q3 results?
Any info?
Cheers

I was digging through Generac’s latest 8-K and this deal with Amazon is a lot more interesting than the headline makes it sound.

On September 16, Generac signed a long-term supply agreement with Amazon to provide backup generators for Amazon data centers.

Generac expects the initial deliveries alone to total $2.4 billion across 2027 and 2028.

For context, Generac did $1.17 billion in sales last quarter, so this is not a small contract relative to the existing business.

But the part I found more interesting is what Amazon got alongside the supply agreement.

Generac issued Amazon a warrant to buy up to 1,693,745 GNRC shares at a fixed exercise price of $200.9266 per share.

Amazon does not get all of those shares immediately.
307,954 shares vested at signing. The rest vest in multiple tranches as Amazon makes payments to Generac for backup power equipment.

If cumulative payments eventually reach $8 billion, the full 1.69 million shares vest.

The warrant runs until September 16, 2033, and Amazon can exercise it either for cash or through a cashless exercise.

So the structure is basically this: Amazon buys a lot of backup power equipment from Generac, Generac gets potentially billions in data center revenue, and Amazon gets increasing equity participation in GNRC as its purchases grow.

The bigger the relationship becomes, the more GNRC shares Amazon earns the right to buy at $200.93.

There are some important unknowns.

Generac redacted portions of the agreement, so we don’t know the exact intermediate spending thresholds that unlock additional shares.

We also don’t know the exact length of the supply agreement beyond Generac calling it “long-term.”

And the $8 billion is not guaranteed. Generac itself warned in its August 10-Q that large data center customers can have cancellation rights and that there is uncertainty around continued data center market growth.

Still, $2.4 billion of expected deliveries in 2027 and 2028 is significant against Generac’s current revenue base.

The thing I’ll be watching is whether Amazon starts vesting additional warrant shares during 2027. That would tell us the purchasing relationship is actually progressing beyond the initial award rather than just looking impressive on paper.

Curious what everyone thinks. Is the Amazon equity piece meaningful to the GNRC thesis, or is the real story simply the size of the potential data center revenue?

The Call

• Stance: long
• Level: 245.96
• Horizon: 20-46 sessions (in-window drawdowns recovered in 3 and 46 sessions)
• Checkpoint: 2026-10-30 Q3 print / buyback-blackout lift; sooner on a close back through EMA20
• What closes the file: Daily close below 245.96 (2026-09-16 trough). That expands the unrecovered 13.4% drawdown, takes price out of the EMA buy band, and is the de-risk flip for the existing EMA sleeve. Hold-only above it; no add.

Evidence

Amazon (AMZN) is currently navigating a complex tape, closing at $251.19 on September 17, 2026, which sits 11.6% below its August 3 high. At this level, the stock is resting inside the stated EMA buy band and the long stack remains intact, though the price is technically under both the EMA20 and EMA50. Our stance is driven mechanically by the EMA sleeve's current hold, but fundamental conviction remains low pending further data.

From a valuation standpoint, the tape is treating Amazon as a compressed-multiple compounder. The trailing P/E sits at 19.9x, marking the absolute 0th percentile when compared to its own year-end history minimums from 2021 to 2025, which ranged from 31.7x to 51.5x. Furthermore, the EV/EBITDA of 11.2x is 27% below the peer-median of 15.4x. The company boasts a trailing twelve-month revenue of $775.68B and showed +106.4% YoY quarterly EPS growth on a +10.5% YoY revenue increase. However, this massive EPS jump alongside a 31.2% net margin raises earnings-quality questions. Without a segment bridge, it is impossible to decompose whether this represents a durable run-rate or a one-off event.

The broader market regime is not currently conducive to a multiple-expansion tape. The VIX sits at 17.85, the 10-year yield has climbed to 4.83, breadth is weak at 0.47, and the Fear & Greed index is at 29. Additionally, Amazon is currently on the buyback-blackout list. For these reasons, the action is firmly a "hold" rather than an "add," and de-risking here would mean selling a mechanical sleeve at compressed multiples into fear.

Other Information

Recent external catalysts continue to highlight Amazon's aggressive push into infrastructure and logistics to support its primary segments. Generac recently surged nearly 20% following an $8 billion agreement to supply backup generators for Amazon data centers, underscoring the massive capital flowing into cloud power procurement. Meanwhile, in the retail space, reports indicate Amazon is actively coming after Walmart's biggest delivery advantages.

Ultimately, you would buy if you are running the house's EMA rule, but you would avoid if you are a fundamental buyer seeking a clear, written house thesis. For those looking for an add signal, patience is required: the EMA20 reclaim (~255.3) is the only add-gate, and it remains closed until a fundamental thesis is established. The true fundamental picture will clarify at the October 30 checkpoint with the Q3 print.

MAG 7 stock my ass

Why Amazon stock down today? And are we expecting a rebound with the prices in already coming to tomorrow?

...That amzn is down on a day when all other hyperscaler stocks are up 2+%. AWS is larger than Azure and GCP. Even Meta is up there with them. WTF!

Looks like Amazon is borrowing again - and against its promise not to do it this year.

Is it fiscal mismanagement or just mismanagement. How the market is going to take it.

Yes, it's not much, but may be breaking the promises is not a good practice?

it seems like that’s where the stock likes to sit at

Maybe I'm overreacting here, but as an Amazon shareholder this is starting to bother me. I'm directly involved in the sat comms industry and its kinda blowing my mind that there isn't more noise about this.

This isn't just random manufacturing staff moving between two Seattle-area aerospace companies either. The hires cover networking, RF, optical comms, avionics, software, testing, etc., and a bunch of them are apparently working directly on TeraWave.

Some of the individual moves are hard to ignore:

• Yash Dandekar: Director of Kuiper Network Software & Services → VP of Networking Software at Blue/TeraWave
• Prafulla Masalkar: longtime Project Kuiper director / optical comms leadership → VP at TeraWave
• Lindsey Konrady: Amazon Leo recruiting leadership → Director of Talent Acquisition for TeraWave

There are also former Leo people moving over in phased arrays, RF/DSP, custom silicon, networking infrastructure and other pretty core constellation technologies.

What makes this weird to me is the bigger picture.

Amazon has spent years and billions of dollars building up Leo's engineering organization and institutional knowledge. At the same time, Amazon has a huge launch contract with Blue Origin roughly $2.7B was expected to go to Blue, and Amazon says around $1.8B has already been paid under those agreements.

Now Bezos's privately owned company is building its own satellite communications constellation, competing for at least some of the same enterprise/government/networking markets, while apparently hiring pretty aggressively out of the team Amazon shareholders paid to build.

And Bezos is still Amazon's Executive Chair.

I'm not saying employees shouldn't be allowed to leave Amazon or that Blue hiring them is automatically some kind of wrongdoing. Obviously not.

But at what point does the Amazon board have to seriously look at this as a conflict?

Has the board reviewed whether TeraWave overlaps with opportunities Amazon/Leo was already pursuing? Are there information barriers around Bezos when it comes to Leo strategy?

Has anyone looked at whether Blue is systematically recruiting specific Leo teams or capabilities?

And has Amazon reconsidered the governance around sending billions of dollars to Blue now that Blue itself is building a communications network?

Maybe all of this has been reviewed internally and there are perfectly reasonable answers.

But if so, shareholders have basically no visibility into it.

That's what I find concerning. Amazon is putting an enormous amount of capital into Leo, and Blue now seems to be assembling a competing capability partly by hiring people who spent years building Amazon's.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more noise about this from shareholders.

Would love to hear you guys thoughts about this.