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: Sam Sara who wrote (96786)	3/18/2000 11:28:00 AM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

AMZN: ING BARING FURM decreased estimate for fiscal year ending 12/01 from $-0.40 to $-0.44 on 03/17/00 AMZN: ING BARING FURM decreased estimate for quarter ending 03/00 from $-0.32 to $-0.34 on 03/17/00 AMZN: ING BARING FURM decreased estimate for quarter ending 12/00 from $-0.23 to $-0.24 on 03/17/00

To: Sam Sara who wrote (96786)	3/19/2000 1:03:00 AM
From: Sam Sara	Respond to of 164684

From Barron's: Barron's: Your degree in political science must be coming in handy lately. What do you make of the events surrounding Tuesday's selloff in biotechs? Are there justifiable concerns? Carr: First of all, the announcement that the President and Tony Blair made is nothing terribly new. The whole notion of patenting genes or indeed in many cases patenting fragments of genes thought to have therapeutic relevancy has not been anything we have attributed much value to. The real patents of value from the Human Genome Project and other projects to characterize genes will be in the products themselves, not in the actual gene sequence. There is enough gene-sequence information already available in the public sector to keep scientists busy for a couple of generations. Most of it is going to be available anyway. The fact that the President says it should be is just a reaffirmation of what is going to happen anyway. And the Patent Office made it clear fairly recently that they didn't have much interest in issuing patents on gene sequences. Q: So what does the selloff reflect? Massive speculation? A: That's happened over the last couple of months as the momentum players have come into the sector without really understanding what the companies did and what the real potential was. It was a "shoot, ready, aim" kind of investing sequence. We have noticed it in the calls that we have gotten over the last few weeks. The level of sophistication of the questions has deteriorated. So I think Tuesday was a speculative shakeout. Does it have any particular long-term significance? Not in our view.

To: Sam Sara who wrote (96786)	3/23/2000 8:26:00 AM
From: Robert Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

<I am speculating on investor psychology here- two factors are prior biotech meltdowns in 1990s that many remember and lack of intellectual comfort by many with technology. This injects an extra degree of FUD into sector contributing to recent decline. Who knows what will happen next, slow recovery or basing with a seed event to start next acceleration. > These are exactly my thoughts. However, even if the recovery is slow, basing will be much shorter than the 90's basing period for these reasons: 1) much more r&d coming to fruition, igniting excitement even in areas with far-out payoffs, 2) the recent runup has provided funding opps (secondaries, etc.) that stabilize and greatly strengthen the balance sheets of these companies. While the investment risks remain higher than those in the b2b space, I just can't help but think that this selloff is a great buying opp, and that the runup is not over yet for the year 2000. I am buying again this AM.