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 (79460)	10/3/1999 3:42:00 PM
From: Tom Kearney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Eric - I don't mean to be argumentative, but calling MSFT and INTC relatively safe long terms holdings on par with Dogs of the Dow is really re-writing history. I've been holding MSFT since Jan 95, and nobody ever thought it was a sure thing, that I recall. The DD is calculated based on dividends, which these guys don't have. And how can long term invertors be losing money on YHOO, AMZN, etc - they haven't been around long enough to be long term investments, yet! Long term tech investor; i-nets investor; +60% in 99 - so far. Regards, Tom

To: Eric Wells who wrote (79460)	10/3/1999 8:45:00 PM
From: dbblg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Eric, Thanks for the post and for sharing your personal experiences. I'm scrambling to get out of town, but here are a couple of thoughts... >>Prior to 1999, many traditional buy-and-hold investors were investing in what might be considered low-risk long-term plays (including the big techs, such as MSFT or INTC and the Dogs of the DOW). Tom Kearney's right: a lot of strong performers look safer with the benefit of hindsight. Long term buy-and-holders of IBM had many anxious moments in the early 1990s. Around the same time, MOT, NSM and AMD were touted as superb buy and hold candidates. More recently, PSFT, DIS, G, and KO were sold as supersafe buy and hold stocks. >>these analysts are from respected firms such as DLJ or ML, so they must be honest and they must know what they are talking about." lol. I haven't gone back and done a serious analysis of this, but I doubt sell-side analysis on inet stocks is that much worse than on any other sector. Most of my short-term trading profits in 1998 came from shorting specialty finance companies, subprime lenders, etc. The analyst reports on those companies (which typically generate huge fees for the firms which handle their securitizations) were almost comically out of touch with reality. The assumptions made about loss reserves, balance sheet exposure to widening credit spreads, etc., were at least as wacky as the assumptions used to rationalize buy ratings on stuff like TGLO and UBID. >>..the IPO price as well as the number of shares offered are set unrealistically low. Agree. This is one of the many unsavory aspects of i-banking at this particular point in history. A couple of companies have made the system work for them by completing quick secondaries, but most will likely suffer over the longer term. Shares are in much weaker hands than they should be, both because longer-term institutions are losing out in allocations to their faster-money brethren, and because the huge opening pops are tempting folks who planned to hold their shares to flip. >>And buy-and-hold just doesn't work at a casino. This is a huge question, obviously, but... Buy-and-hold works fine as long as the current valuation matches the expected hold period and, obviously, as long as there is a viable long-term story. In 1996, when the first wave of net stocks corrected hard , a lot of people on these boards railed about how they had been duped by the investment banks. Others counseled patience. 3+ years later, the people who held AOL, YHOO, and even XCIT are happy; the people who held CYCH and OMKT are presumably angry and bitter. Investors smart enough to differentiate between the two kinds of investments have reaped rewards which shame most traders' profits. Returns like that, sadly, can't be achieved solely by listening to sellside ratings. Incidentally, a few years ago on the XLNX thread a semiconductor analyst I respect discussed some of the issues involving analysts and individual investors in a series of posts you might find interesting. His first post was #166 on that thread. Best of luck, Ganesh