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.

Strategies & Market Trends : The New Economy and its Winners -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (5424)	2/25/2001 12:43:03 PM
From: 16yearcycle	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57684

Sure, but you know what my point is: it is much more likely then not that, if this is a worst case scenario, we are reliving the bad markets of the late 60's into the 80's, and not the nikkei. If I am right, the nas will be in a trading range from 1800 to 5000 for a few years, and then perhaps, 4,000 to 10,000 for another 10 years. The overall return from 5000 will be awful, but the reurn off of the 40% drops COULD be great. There were 3 ways to make money from 65-82: value folks bought and held at the bottoms in 1969, and 1974(and are STILL holding); others made a fortune in commodity markets; and the least reliable would have been buying and selling the trading ranges, which were immense. There were huge swings in 10 of the 16 years. You would have had numerous opportunities to have 100-300% runs on growth stocks in months, but you would have had to sell it all and then wait for the next big dip. I think that is the script going forward.

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (5424)	2/26/2001 12:54:11 AM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 57684

Bill, Do you recall when you stated Amazon is not a retailer but rather it is a software company? If not, I surely can locate that post but take a look at this. The emphasis is mine: To: Rob S. who wrote (13683) From: William Harmond Monday, Aug 17, 1998 12:18 AM ET Reply # of 115251 >>This post tells us what I have long suspected - that Amazon.com, rather than being the technical powerhouse that some have imagined, has been forced to acquire companies to meet competitive threats that it could well have prepared itself for That's how Cisco does it. Microsoft, SAP, Procter & Gamble, you name it. >>rather than being the technical powerhouse Amazon is not a "technical powerhouse", and never claimed to be so. Amazon is an online merchandiser. >>has been forced to acquire companies to meet competitive threats That's spin. Forced by what? Your ShopBot demons? Why should Amazon undertake software development (a long, risky process outside its core competency) when it can acquire the best there is today (and the best developers with it) in a pooling of interests? You didn't include the significant fact that the owners of that killer technology took Amazon stock in trade. What do they know that we don't? >>why didn't they see the impact of Web Shop Bots long before the threat loomed so obviously? This reminds me of the hysterics on the Yahoo thread some months ago when banner-blocking software was going to kill Internet advertising and Yahoo's business model with it. What's your favorite ShopBot, Rob? How has it worked for you? " So what is Amazon besides it is morphing?