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: Bearded One who wrote (101280)	4/16/2000 11:36:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164685

earnings are for losers' i like that one, beard. some folks that used to say that now can't afford their obligations. i've heard of two folks who built grand homes and can't afford them now. why? they were so greedy they didn't want to risk losing that 30% in the next 3 months. ho ho ho ho ho! ;-)

To: Bearded One who wrote (101280)	4/16/2000 11:36:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164685

The point is, Glenn, there was a reason that PE/G of 1 is a good rule-of-thumb. Take the earnings, compound it by the earnings growth over a few years, and you get a guess as to the total earnings over that time period assuming constant growth, ignoring inflation. That was a rough estimate of how much the company could pay back its investors for owning the stock. BO, I understand how this works well. My point is some firms now have exponential growth as compared to linear which makes a five year growth number quite difficult to ascertain.

To: Bearded One who wrote (101280)	4/16/2000 11:43:00 PM
From: Bill Harmond	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164685

>>People don't realize that even for a company that is growing at 50% or 100% a year, it will never justify its stock price at that rate if the P/E is 200 or 300. Your point is well taken, and I used that yardstick for years. However, a company emerging into the black with that kind of bottom-line growth would be a different story. Several of the Internet leaders are growing much faster than 100%. Vignette is growing at 60% sequentially, but still reporting losses. Obviously there's more value there than the PEG method allows. Additionally, there are other factors involved. The market position, scalability, and likely future cash flows from the business are not represented in a hard number of any kind. Go back to more "rational times", say 1994-95, and track the progress and PEG of AOL. You'll see that AOL never followed the PEG rule. That said PEG is a great sensible tool for valuing many companies.

To: Bearded One who wrote (101280)	4/16/2000 11:45:00 PM
From: 10K a day	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164685

Well Geeze Loueze Beardy! You must be LIKE all over Valley Media with 9 hundred million in revenues and a price to sales of .05! (.05 CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT!!) MY GOSH MAN! THEY ARE ONE OF AMAZON'S BIGGEST SUPPLIERS!! MY GOSH MAN!! THEY GREW REVENUES BY ALMOST 100 MILLION LAST YEAR WITH a 9 PERCENT GROWTH RATE! CHECK OUT THE STELLAR STOCK CHART! LOL! siliconinvestor.com