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: 10K a day who wrote (122594)	4/2/2001 8:40:59 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

impristine, comparing a $30k hound dog to a $35k alley cat isn't good investing strategy. the net bubble should have drilled that message home. coke and disney will eventually reflect fair value relative to alternative investments. to think their valuations are now somehow "normal" is to disregard history and that comes with a BIG price.

To: 10K a day who wrote (122594)	4/2/2001 9:48:29 PM
From: manalagi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Give me a break dude No problem impristine. Technology is of course the name of the game for the future. Just that the valuation is so absurd. Coca cola has too high of a PE, Disney has management which does not care about their employees and stockholders. Disney only cares about Michael Eisner who is paid so well despite the company's poor performance. Let us just say Eisner salary is just $ 1 because of the the dismal result (hey look: you can only eat three times a day, wear one set of clothes at the time, make love five times a day max, sleep on one bed at the time, why would he be so greedy?) . How much more would Eisner earns? The market already knows that there is no incentive for Michael to do a better job. He draws millions of dollars regardless. Technology will not become the engine to turn around the economy. Compare that to the auto industry. Look at the economic business cycle. Automobile has a limited life (even if that current products last longer). Once the car breaks down, you have to buy a car. In this field there are both technological and economic obsolescence. Not only the car breaks down, but it costs more money to operate as compared to a newer car. Hence, people are forced to buy car. In the auto industry the multiplier effect is to huge that producing an automobile lifts the tide for other industry as well: steel, battery, tires etc. Compare that to computers. Yes, computers get faster. Yes you get technological obsolescence, but your current computer is adequate. When was the last time you changed computer? People are still satisfied with Pentium III, and they are not migrating to Pentium IV. The multiplier effect is small as compared to the auto industry. When there is a recession just like now, people defer upgrading their computer, but some peole cannot wait when their cars do not run anymore. Look at the 3G in the wireless industry. The wireless market is exploding, but are you willing to spend hundreds of dollars to surf the internet via your cell phone? Yes, China has a huge market and QCOM will be there. However the future is still the future, and many people are mistaken that the future is just 1 year hence. Just look at fiberoptics. I made a lot of money in JDSU, but sold them all because it has limited future. Right now the telecom sector is changing to fiber optics to satisfy the demand for speed. Several years from now, the entire nation will be wired with fiber optics. Where will the growth in JDSU when the demand for its main products recedes? As for Amazon: Jeff Bezos does not have a background in retailing. He was in hedge fund, and a pretty good salesman in that field. He should have a better definition of operating profit such as operating profit on a pro-active basis, which excludes only one item: Cost of Goods Sold. Compare that operating profit on a pro-froma basis which excludes many items like interest charge, restructuring, cost of options etc. Don't you see how heviolated the Generally Accepted Accounting Practice? Now you know that the three biggest lies are: 1. I love you 2. I won't c*me in your mouth 3. Jeff Bezos' operating profit in Q4 2001 Skeeter Bug stated that he refused to consider the negative views of SEXI, and he lost money as a result. But Skeeter learnt from that lesson, although the tuition was expensive. The same thing is happening to Amazon. Anybody who bought Amazon shares the past three years and still holding them suffer huge paper loss. Hoping that Amazon to turn around is like wishing getting a marriage proposal from Nicole Kidman.