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: ChrisJP who wrote (119424)	3/5/2001 11:00:43 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

From The Street Life: "AN AMAZON/WAL-MART E-DEAL?.... Bad, bad day to be short Amazon. The e-tailer surged 26% to $12 5/8 on rumors that it's talking to Wal-Mart about running WMT's e-commerce division. While part of me says sure, Wal-Mart doesn't really seem to know what it's doing with the whole e-commerce thing, another part of me wonders if Amazon really gets it. That and the fact that it was Britain's Sunday Times that broke the story. No offense, but how would a bunch of Brits get the lowdown on what's happening in Arkansas? I file this one under "believe-it-when-I-see-it." "

To: ChrisJP who wrote (119424)	3/5/2001 11:25:37 PM
From: SouthFloridaGuy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

I'm looking at some charts. 5 years ago the S&P was at 650; the NASDAQ was at 1100. Yes, $4 trillion has gone to money heaven since March 2000. But have people lost $4 trillion ? lol, looks to me like they've doubled their money in 5 years -- 7 years sooner than if they put their money in a bank. The story is even better if you use 1991 as the starting point. 1) Of course the past has been been great, THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED A BUBBLE and that's why it will be deflated serverly. So unless people sell, that wealth disappears. With no personal savings to back up the stock market losses, families are in major trouble. Your logic is circular at best. Anyway, that should represent how pathetic this bubble has been. 2) Charts represent past facts. I think we all know what the market has done, the question is, what will happen to the market NOW AND IN THE FUTURE? Past performance is not indicative of future results. It's a mistake made over and over again through the jaded eyes of even "seasoned" investors. Let me put it this way? Joe Smith, 60 made money (on paper), but what about Robert, the graduate of college who began investing in his 401k in 1999? The people who are to benefit the most from a bubble are the ones who are about to retire because they can sell or the ones who were smart and sold early. Everybody else gets screwed. If you don't think that 1974 was a bubble, maybe you should go back and find out the valuations/premiums placed on some of those "nifty fifty" blue chips from 1969 - 1971. They were pretty outrageous. The nifty fifty represented 50 stocks, was a short-lived event, and most importantly (this is a key point), the stock market did not have as much RELEVANCE to the overall economy then as it does now. However, your point is well taken, LOOK HOW LONG IT TOOK FOR THE NIFTY FIFTY TO COMEBACK - PEOPLE SHOULD USE THIS AS A THUMBNAIL ANALOGY TO TECH STOCKS. The stock market IS the economy now as most families have a tremendous amount of wealth in the markets. We have 4% - 5% unemployment, low interest rates, and no inflation. A tough combination to beat. Once again, circular reasoning. First, who says we've hit bottom or even started to hit bottom? I am predicting 10% unenemployment. If the stock market (aka economy) was a bubble, then wouldn't it serve right that we would have low unemployment (which is currently rising by all measures)? As far as price stability during the bubble (USA 1920's and Japan 1985-1990 both had no inflation), there are economic reasons to this that are easily learned at your local JR College Economics class. If you need input, PM me and I will link you to some sites. Maybe if we did some public executions of some bankers, maybe they'd learn not to mail out credit cards with 21% interest rates. Maybe they'd learn not to bring companies like Priceline.com public and maintain buy recommendations when the company had a market cap greater than United Airlines. I totally agree. I hope they fry in hell.

To: ChrisJP who wrote (119424)	3/6/2001 3:53:52 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>>lol, looks to me like they've doubled their money in 5 years -- 7 years sooner than if they put their money in a bank. The story is even better if you use 1991 as the starting point.<< chris, garbage in, garbage out. the whole concept listed above is a total fallacy. why? because 10 times more shares were purchased near the top. you assume linearity when it doesn't exist. the avg price of a retail tech share is most probably down over the 5 years you said they "doubled" their money. v-o-l-u-m-e, my friend, volume. let me give you an idea of how different volume was in the bubble than in the 1991 time frame. intl, msft, ibm, csco and a couple other stocks rose more than the ENTIRE VALUE of the top ten tech stocks in 1991 - IN A SINGLE DAY! i think that was late 1999 - i was FLOORED people were acting so dumb. please, rescind the error you posted above lest the ignorant think it is of some value. MANY, MANY more people shares were purchased near the top than in 1990 or 1991 or 1992 COMBINED! not only that, many more shares were made available through the IPO process... maybe you have heard of it ;-)