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 : InfoSpace (INSP): Where GNET went! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (12388)	9/25/1999 9:31:00 AM
From: playavermont	Respond to of 28311

<I believe there's a difference between recent brokerage recommendations for Go2Net and what happened with Wang/Forbes... (for one, I haven't seen any Morgan Stanley analysts at the Go2Net offices doing any research> And who have you seen at the Go2Net offices lately doing research? Just kidding! Thanks for your response. Go2Net is an impressive company with some very talented people. Your analogy with GNET/YHOO and DELL/CPQ is one that will win the hearts of GNET longs! For so long compaq was the BIGGEST. Yet Dell (quietly) delivered a fine product with an EFFICIENT business model with a superior vision and management team. Hope you are correct! Best to you!

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (12388)	9/25/1999 10:35:00 AM
From: Bill F.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28311

jeff-having read all your posts i would just like to add that this kind of stuff happens literally hundreds of times a day these days.it is most egregious with tech analysts though.they literally just make things up although it is usually on the upside,so no one cares too much(at least for now).wall street analyst`s used to be wrong often but they at least did some homework.that no longer appears to be the case.it is far easier and more profitable to just make up stuff and gun the stocks higher.the p.m`s who benefit then send more commision dollars to their firm.however,that is just the tip of the iceberg of sleazy behavior that occurs these days,the amount of manipulation and front running that goes on is breathtaking.i am afraid that all these and other abuses(like accounting) will not be cleaned up until after we have a bear market and the public demands to know how they got snookered.until then bad(no -really) analysis is all we can look forward to.that is why i call them "dead fish" in the rap all the time.fortunately for gnet shareholders they have little impact when they say xyz should go down unlike when they say i`m raising my target on abc to 350$ because it sound like a good number today......

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (12388)	9/25/1999 1:52:00 PM
From: Charles W. Breaux, Jr.	Respond to of 28311

To Jeff & Bill from Go2Net and all the thread participants, thank you for such discussions as on this Saturday morning. They help dispel the misinformation from the professional "analysts" and empower us individual investors. May we all continue to think and analyze for ourselves and discuss together and be happy with our long positions on GNET for a long time to come. Chuck, #85

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (12388)	9/25/1999 4:39:00 PM
From: Cheeky Kid	Respond to of 28311

>In the 1970s the world was supposedly running out of oil. Virtually every economist predicted that the end of an era was at hand. The industrial nations would have to tighten their belts, garage their cars, turn off their air conditioners, and generally adjust to lower standards of living. Today, oil prices (adjusted for inflation) are lower than they have been at any time since the 1960s. (Indeed, in terms of productivity--for example, how far a dollar's worth of gasoline will take you--prices are lower than they've ever been.) What happened? What proved the economists wrong in their prediction? Through the magic of technology, we developed better methods of producing energy and more efficient ways of using it. By replacing $300 carburetors with $25 computerized fuel injectors, automobile manufacturers doubled the fuel efficiency of new cars. This effectively doubled the supply of gasoline, thus effectively increasing the supposedly fixed supply of oil. At the same time, we also began developing entirely new energy sources, next to which the breakthroughs of the last decade will pale by comparison. Our ability to transform the raw materials of nature into the most elegant and sophisticated devices imaginable--to "make computers from dirt," as the mathematician Mitchell Feigenbaum recently put it--has so dramatically altered the rules that we are playing an entirely new game. The most successful entrepreneurs of our time--H. Ross Perot, Sam Walton, Steve Jobs--have been playing this new game without necessarily understanding its principles. Indeed, without knowing it,our best and brightest investment bankers, for example, have been proving the fundamental alchemic notion that resources are less important than technology; or, to put it in financial terms, that fixed physical assets are less important than intellectual assets. < Paul Zane Pilzer - Unlimited Wealth Book: amazon.com Tape: amazon.com - - - - - - - - - - - - - - How do you value Net stocks? I don't know, but I find reading / following intelligent, if not revolutionary people, like Paul Zane Pilzer, James Dines, I have a completely different outlook. The Internet will continue to grow at a dizzying pace. I remember a few years back, doomers were predicting the death of the Internet as increasing growth would make it grind to a halt. At that time a fast Internet connection was 14.4, now I am using a cable modem, downloading 50MB programs in minutes. Companies are being forced to have a presence on the Internet, every radio or TV show about the Internet will enforce this. If you don't have an Internet address or e-mail address, it's going to be equivalent to not having a fax machine. There is only one growth pattern for the Internet, and that's up. It's not going to grow sideways like some stocks, the Internet is going to be dominated by companies. Like a gold mine, the more of that gold vein on your claim stake the richer you will be. The only thing different is we don't know how large the Internet will grow, so having a large piece of the pie (gold vein) is the best assurance you could ever hope to have. But I think everyone here knows this any ways.

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (12388)	9/26/1999 8:00:00 PM
From: The O	Respond to of 28311

There is a better way... it's called two-way communication. If you say something that effects the market price of a publicly traded company, you should be required to participate in a two-way public discussion forum. Otherwise, we have chaos where people (manipulators) go unchallenged, lies are spread and people get hurt. How can anyone figure out what to believe if the Wall Street analysts (manipulators) cannot be directly questioned? This should be the basis for Go2net/SI's new ad campaign. It's unique, and a fresh view of how the new market "gurus" will be developed. SI-Market Gurus for the next 100 years. The bottom line is nobody knows what will happen. A forum where you can obtain information and join into frank discussion without spam is where most will go in the future for information. In the past your average joe could not get easy access to so much info. Now anyone can. O

To: Jeff Dryer who wrote (12388)	9/28/1999 11:05:00 AM
From: Dany Tremblay	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28311

Good discussion concerning the value of what "analysts" have to say about company valuations. Here's my c2: Most investors today are so new to the market that all they know of it is that it pretty much goes up all the time. By definition, this lack of experience also hampers their ability to decide for themselves where a company is headed, never mind a whole sector, or even a whole market. Commodities, metals, money supply... what are those? It follows that a lot of today's "internet generation investors" generally rely on the analysis generated by someone else. What has saved most of these investors' butts up to now is that most newbies only invest long and we are in the midst (read at the end) of a bull market. Period. There is no difference between this type of investing pattern and that which ocured in th mid eighties and in the 20's. Back then, newbies invested based on leads, better known as tips. The best tipsters (call them analysts if you want) are revered the most. One can only be "hot" for so long since most of these oracles base their thinking on a favored pattern. The markets will change, as they always do, and will nullify their current investment strategies. They will go "cold" and fizzle out! Well, one day soon, a lot of people are going to painfully realize that investing based on what other people say leads to failure. If an investor can't do his own research, the only reason for his/her success is the bull market. Take away the bulls and a lot of investors and so called analytical gurus are going to find something else to do. No one likes a bear market, or even worst, a flat one. In the end, and I can't say this often enough, don't invest on tips. If the markets are going to pay off for you in the long run, it'll be because you did your own homework and were prepared to accept change and move with it. #29 PS: "You" in this post is not meant to be directed at anyone person in particular.