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: Danny who wrote (110876)	10/20/2000 11:39:02 AM
From: Robert Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

<Rob, dont forget historically, these kind of stocks present very attractive long term potential, ie, fundamentally sound companies facing ST tough business environment. Yes, it may take time for them to recovery, but once they do, the upside is huge. > I'm willing to place my bet on yhoo providing a better entry point within the next 6 months. When that happens, that will be the best entry point for yhoo going forward, and I am in for the long haul. Period. :)

To: Danny who wrote (110876)	10/20/2000 2:13:47 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Danny, read the new economy thread, we have discussed psft. They spent some time on rearchitecture and now have a pretty good supply chain solution apparently. Nobody else can meet demand so psft probably has room to run. Lizzie

To: Danny who wrote (110876)	10/20/2000 3:01:40 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>>Does anyone here really believe both comapnies could go significantly lower than those number?<< absolutely, i believe your valuation methodology is wacked. just b/c a lesser company appreciates 200% doesn't mean a better company should also appreciate. let's talk dollars. let's say a $100 company (yes, i asked god what the true value was!) is trading at $1000. a lesser company worth $10 (thanks, god!) and traded at $0.50. the next year the $1000 stock went to $500 and the $.50 stock went to $2.50. neither company's "godly" value changed in the year. >>"the $500 company is" far superior fundamentally than the $02.50 company", it's just a matter of time [for share appreciation].<< well, god doesn't think so! this exposes a HUGE DISCONNECT in the LOGIC of your statement. VALUATION is EVERYTHING and you never discuss it! msft has had problems growing earnings yet trades at a high multiple to shrinking earnings. they will easily be halved when macro economic forces return to the norm, as they eventually MUST. credit can't grow at double digits forever, housing prices can't go up 20% a year forever. savings can't be reduced forever. money supply can't grow in double digits forever. take away air and what happens to a beautiful and powerful fire? it goes out and leaves ashes. rca was once a brilliant flame on the leading edge of a revolutionary technology in its day - radio (marginally much more revolutionary than the net when compared to the times). it dropped 97% from top to bottom. the technology didn't go away. rca remained a leader. rca still exists 71 years later. somebody took the air away from the fire. you ain't seen nothin', yet.