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: H James Morris who wrote (119270)	3/4/2001 9:57:49 PM
From: ChrisJP	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

All I can say is ... based on that story, we must be a lot closer to the bottom than we are to the top. A post I made in April, 2000. Message 13476375 IMO, after falling 3000 points, the NASDAQ has only 300 - 600 points to go. The S&P 500 -- wellll ... to return to normal PEs (16:1 - 18:1), needs to return to the 1000 - 1100 range. That may sound negative, but at least I think things will return to normal .. not below normal. In 1973 - 1974 people hated the stock market so much, stocks fell as earnings were rising. Of course, back then earnings weren't rising as fast as interest rates and real estate prices. So the stock market fell out of favor for several years. The good news .... when the rebound happens and the uptrend is restored ... there will be plenty of time to spot it and participate. Regards, Chris

To: H James Morris who wrote (119270)	3/4/2001 11:49:14 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>You apparently believe it has merit? Glenn, the only thing I believe is if this Wal-Mart deal is true it might save Amzn and then again it might not! Btw There's a hell of a lot more going on than the survival of Amazon.com. Amzn was the symptom of the new economy, but it won't be the cure! Oh! wasn't this the Harmond hype? >were widely viewed as having limitless growth potential that justified sky-high prices for their stocks--even though many of the companies weren't yet profitable >By WALTER HAMILTON, Times Staff Writer Jim, Good article. Depressing a bit but reality is there. As with today's glee about the Internet, 1929 was full of optimism about a supposedly new economic era, said Richard Sylla, a professor of financial history at New York University. Productivity was rising, and investors were excited about such advances as widespread use of cars and electricity, and the introduction of talking movies, Sylla said. "The '20s and the '90s are quite similar in what happened and in how people viewed it at the time," Sylla said. But, as with the Internet bubble, there was little regard in the 1920s for the practical applications of the era's innovations in business and society, Harvard Business School's Koehn said. Like so many dot-com companies today, loads of businesses failed in the early 1900s, even though the era's technological improvements were profound. I am not sure that the perceived differences in the technology improvements between the 1920s and the 1990s is a good comparison. It would seem that there are practical application dof the technology from the 1990s compared to that of the 1020s. That is only a gut feel or maybe wishful thinking. Glenn

To: H James Morris who wrote (119270)	3/5/2001 12:18:40 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>>There was no shortage of analysts warning a year ago that Nasdaq had become a dangerous speculative bubble. Yet small investors continued to pour into the market.<< those b*stards are already re-writing history. funny, i don't recall analysts telling people they were in a bubble. i remember analysts talking about supertankers and unlimited potential and new economies. now it is the small investor, failing to heed the analyst community advice, that whipped up this bubble... wtf? btw, the naz is up 120% over the last 5 years and all i hear about are losses, losses and more losses? proves my point, the average retail share purchased over that time is down, down, down b/c multiples of low price share purchases were made near the top... many multiples...