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: Randy Ellingson who wrote (100503)	4/14/2000 12:15:00 AM
From: Bill Harmond	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

That was one helluva post, Randy.

To: Randy Ellingson who wrote (100503)	4/14/2000 1:25:00 AM
From: Rob S.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

There is nothing wrong with the economy except perhaps the distorting influence of hyper inflated tech stock market; New think: Valuations should be based on new metrics because old ones can't be measured. Page hits v. sales. user registrations v. profits. Salaries and bonuses of analysts v. reasonable guidance. Conventional financing for operations and talent won't work . . . so float companies with "new economy" stock valuations. Analyze sales based on the fast growth dynamic of the Internet but evaluate margins based on the best metrics for the less fluid old world economy. The growth story hasn't been undone but some whisper of reality has finally overcome the roar. Now there is some acknowledgement that the Internet is a perfect vehicle for squeezing down profits and creating a competitive environment in which only the leanest and meanest will survive. Amazon is a good company in terms of developing sales. If they show that they can move toward profitability they may even be worth a few bucks. Still hard to tell how much. This market has done a lot of technical damage that it can go down much further. We'll probably see a rebound before long but some think not until we see an even sharper sell off similar in effect to '87. Perhaps there is still too much optimism left and not enough shaking out of the tree. Longer term I think things will be fine as the "new economy" rolls out to the old world and becomes ubiquitous.

To: Randy Ellingson who wrote (100503)	4/14/2000 10:19:00 AM
From: Eric Wells	Respond to of 164684

It just seems short-sighted, since we know that markets fluctuate, and asset values with them. Randy - I'm not sure you understand my point. Most every investor evaluates their investments at different time periods - such evaluation involves looking at where money is invested and determining if it is in the best possible investment to meet objectives. I assume you go through this exercise as well. In this electronic world, where I can transfer money from one place to another in a click of a mouse, there is little distinction between "cash" and "stock" - I can convert one to the other in a fraction of a second. Because the two are so easily converted into one another, let's lump them together into one category called "liquid assets". I evaluate the return on my liquid assets on a daily basis - new information becomes available all the time, and based on the new information, I evaluate whether my liquid assets are delivering the return that I desire. If not, I re-arrange them. This is what investing is all about. At some point, you have to keep score of how you are doing. It appears that you choose to evaluate the score when you liquidate an investment - if you sell a stock at a loss, you can then keep score and say "I lost money." You could also choose to keep score every day, and at the end of the day, if your liquid assets are declining in value, you can say "I'm losing money." But if your liquid assets are in the best portfolio per your investment objectives, then you won't rearrange them. I won't interpret your post to mean "never sell" as I assume that even you sell stocks. And I won't interpret your post to mean "only invest in S&P index funds", as the chart you linked to suggests. And I won't interpret your post to suggest that Alan Greenspan is now a stock market guru - this is the same man that complained of irrational exhuberance over 4000 DOW points ago (is it not possible he was trying to calm the market - and what does his comment really mean anyway - intelligent investors will still be allocating capital efficiently even if the Nasdaq falls to 2000) Yes, the market does swing. And individual stock prices swing. It may be a long time until the Nasdaq sees 5000 again - and it may be a long time until AMZN sees 100 again. You have confidence in your investments and that's great - if you have such confidence, you should stay invested. I have confidence in many companies - in fact I have some confidence in some internet companies. I'm confident that Yahoo will be around five years from now. At that time, will Yahoo be making the profit to justify it's stock price - in this, I don't have confidence. Let me clarify - I believe investors have priced in too high a level of confidence into Yahoo's stock. The future is very difficult to predict - and yet over the past two to three year, most investors have seen nothing but the best possible circumstances unfolding in the future. As you say, everyone is always trying to predict the future - and in fact, predictions on returns on investments in the internet have been nothing but rosy for the past two to three years. While I consider myself an optimist, I also like to think of myself as a realist, and as such, I prefer a more balanced outlook on the future - and it looks as though over the past two weeks an attempt is being made to return balance to our markets. -Eric