Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric Wells who wrote (71940)	8/4/1999 9:07:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Hank - I would argue that Meeker and Blodget were wrong from the beginning. I think their revenue and price targets were based on scenarios with likelihoods that were subject to a high degree of risk - and it appears as though a choice was made on their part to not emphasize the risk. Eric, Jonathen Cohen likely lost his job for stating what he believed about AMZN in particular. Worth no more than $50 he said. Hmmm..

To: Eric Wells who wrote (71940)	8/4/1999 9:11:00 PM
From: Slumdog	Respond to of 164684

>>You have to wonder if Meeker and Blodget (and other analysts) think about the potentially millions of individual investors that have lost a lot of money buying net stocks that were being continually propped up by price targets based on unlikely scenarios<< Eric, No kidding. And as someone pointed out yesterday, not one brokerage has issued a sell on AMZN.At least not since the high in April. Not one.(that I know of). In hindsight, I guess they were all dead wrong.

To: Eric Wells who wrote (71940)	8/4/1999 9:22:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

He He once again I disagree. Unfortunately no time for discussion on fundies now! But, the thrust of my argument revolves around amazon doing 300mm in business in only books last xmas after being founded only a few years before. Meekers position on the ecommerce vendors (which I mentioned here once), is that if they invest in infrastructure, which is costly, they can bring the whole world on line much faster than an traditional retailer, and hence grow much faster, albeit not profitably initially. I think last xmas sales figures proved that to be true. It doesn't matter if Walmart marked every book off 75% as loss leaders, there is no way Walmart could have done 300mm in book sales in one quarter after only a few years of operation, apply that to any retail market you like. The problem with Cohen is that he never forsaw revenue like that from Amazon, he missed the 'entire market online at once' concept. Cohen was not predicting a 300mm xmas qtr from amazon, his growth rates were way off, I actually think he valued amazon as if it was one Barnes and Noble superstore or something, with the same growth expectations.