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: schrodingers_cat who wrote (105534)	6/26/2000 10:30:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Why? I think Janus must be dumping, but I'm not sure what changed their mind. This has come to mind. It seemed Janus waould support the stock no matter what. The down volume is also very high compared to general market volume. Barrons is not taken as seriously with on-line investors as are the analysts for whatever reason in my opinion. My guess is Amazon has a disproportionate amount of on-line investors compared to many other securities.

To: schrodingers_cat who wrote (105534)	6/27/2000 8:29:00 AM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Yet last week, in the face of some fairly unremarkable criticism, it crashed. Why? I think Janus must be dumping, but I'm not sure what changed their mind. Can lukewarm comments from Meeker really have that much influence? This is much like a drop of water forming on a window. Bit after bit join in until it reaches critical mass and then rolls down rapidly.

To: schrodingers_cat who wrote (105534)	6/27/2000 12:41:00 PM
From: Eggolas Moria	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

The straw that broke the camel's back . . . I also didn't quite see the problem with Meeker's comments. She indicated some risk to her 2Q revenue forecast. But Blodgett already had a lower 2Q revenue forecast than her published one. Lehman's questions about credit quality have been stated numerous times. To some extent, it's a question of belief. Do you believe that AMZN will be more efficient six months from now than they were last year when they emphasized growth. They won't be spending cash on discretionary investments this year after spending $300 million last year. I don't know the answer. The bulls don't believe that AMZN will be forced to raise cash next year and that the company will burn through at most another $500 million before it turns cash flow positive. The bears . . . well, they agree with that assessment and Lehman's report had them smiling. The real problem in my opinion is that AMZN is transitioning from a revenue growth model to an eventual (if successful) cash flow model. During that process, it is quite often the case that revenue growth lags previous estimates. The momentum investors run and the valuation oriented ones wait. It is usually a painful process to watch the ownership of a stock change in these circumstances.