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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (79130)	9/30/1999 11:52:00 AM
From: 16yearcycle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Bullishness: The fed will probably tighten another time or two but be done before the end of spring 2000. The economy will slow, but e on the dow will be around 560 with the long bond at 5.5-5.75%. This gives us, imo, a pe of 25. 25x560=14000. Plus, by the end of next year we will be looking forward not back, at e of 600+ in 2001. There is no reason to not get to 14000 next year. We are always subject to the possibility of brutal washouts that get us to forward pe's of 15-16, and if one happened now we would see about 9500 on the dow before heading up. All these numbers are so reasonable given the incredible position the US continues to be in. If it is true that 80% of all stocks are lower than in 4/98, Greenspan's rantings are comical. And I think he knows it but sees the ONLY bogey man as a sustained panic, since so much of our net worths are in equities. He will dump substantial liquidity into the system if a big drop occurs, but he wants to avoid the need to have such a scenario even begin. MSFT: How DUMB does "msft" have to be to spin off one of their assets, clearly for the purpose of freeing up value, and at the same time talk about overvaluations? I am all for them wanting price stability, but the timing was incredible in this case. I don't think msft is overvalued and I don't think Ballmer thinks it is either. Like I said here 5 months ago, Msft should have bought amzn. I mean COME ON! AMZN was selling at much less than 20 billion and was positioned to have a TOLL BOOTH on net transactions. Look at what is happening here: we are, in fact, consolidating with just a few "web sites" becoming the long term winners. Basically like we all thought in the first place. If you are Gates, don't you buy AMZN? Aol, and yhoo are too expensive and would render more justice problems. Ebay would have made some sense, but amzn was the one with flexibility and selling at a smaller revenue multiple. Gnet would be a play on the HOPE that you could grow it into a much bigger company. MSFT has 35 billion in liquid assets. They should have done it. I don't know of Belluzio, but it appears that Msft is going to spin these companies off one at a time, instead of a tracking stock(although I was wrong about what they would announce last week so what do I know?). Shareholders don't really benefit after funding their start. It's bullshit. I have moved much of my msft assets into qcom and moderately expanded my aol, csco, and amzn positions, due to my disappointment in msft's actions the past 2-3 months