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: Mark Fowler who wrote (126822)	6/19/2001 2:24:58 AM
From: H James Morris	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

>In 1999 it seemed like every investor wanted an Internet fund and every fund company was rushing to fill the void. Today it seems like no one wants to invest in Internet funds and the fund firms are rushing to abandon the business. What has happened in the interim is not just a huge market decline for Internet stocks, it's a serious reconsideration of what works vs. what sells in the fund business. If you own an Internet fund - or ever considered buying one - there's a good lesson in what's happening now. At the start of 1998, just four funds focused on "Internet stocks," all of them run by small, heretofore-unknown firms. And then the Internet went boom. Watching billions of dollars flood into funds like Munder NetNet, firms jumped on the bandwagon. There were more than 40 Internet funds in March 2000, and that doesn't count the dozens of funds in start-up or incubation phases that never got off the ground. What's more, there were people to buy those funds. In late March 2000, Merrill Lynch opened its Internet Strategies fund. No track record. No phenomenal star manager. Not even a great idea, because all Internet funds merely slice the technology sector too thin. Still, it drew $1.1 billion of investor money right out of the chute. And then things went boom again, only this time it was the sound of the Internet giants falling on their fannies. Today, about half of the Internet funds are gone. Most of the survivors are on borrowed time, likely to merge or liquidate. Monument Internet fund - one of the first four - became Monument Digital Technology and is about to become Orbitex Emerging Technology. Westcott Nothing-But-Net is now something-besides-net, namely Westcott Technology. Munder NetNet - another of the original four - has watched assets fall from $12 billion to about $2 billion. And Merrill Lynch Internet Strategies - pitched to so many investors as the wave of the future - is about to wave goodbye, its wretched record merged into oblivion. "Internet funds have been a bad idea from the get-go, and I won't be sad to see them go," says Morningstar senior analyst Christopher Traulsen. "People don't need a fund that calls itself an Internet fund because any good growth-fund manager is going to be looking for stocks that can improve efficiencies and develop future growth and that is going to include all companies doing things on the Internet." Indeed, positioning is a big problem for Internet funds. The first Internet funds bought anything and everything related to the Net. Some held stocks like Office Depot or The Gap, because they saw the potential in the Web sites of those companies. Others went the "pure-play" route and bought only stocks of firms that were building and developing Internet technology, a strategy that focused the funds and heightened volatility. But Internet technology changes about as fast as a ticker tracking the Dow Jones industrial average, moving one way or another every few seconds. What's more, the Internet has become ubiquitous, a part of the business plan for countless companies. Chances are that any ordinary "technology stock" has Internet ramifications one way or another. But funds that focus on the broader technology sector - instead of just looking at the amorphously defined Internet industry - tend to have lower costs, better track records and more experienced managers than the remaining Internet funds. The question remains whether Internet funds - individually and as an asset class - are worth holding in the future. From a performance standpoint, the answer is murky. No one believes the Internet business will disappear or be depressed forever, but tech-sector funds - rather than Net issues - can accommodate a future rebound with less volatility. Some observers believe Net funds will be like gold funds, a downtrodden asset class that periodically spikes upward. Gold funds frequently have horrible long-term track records (though not necessarily as wretched as an Internet fund started in 1999), but maintain a small market share because some people use them as a hedge during times of inflation. Investors could use Internet funds as a way of forecasting the boom cycles in this slim technology niche. For investors in Internet funds now, that may be a reason to hold on, although current losses could provide a tax incentive to cut losses and buy into something more diversified. Still, the future for many Net funds will be the scrap heap. Says Geoff Bobroff of Bobroff Consulting in East Greenwich, R.I.: "A few will survive, but most will disappear because they can't shake their current track record. Fund companies want these records to disappear; they'll be happy to have Internet funds reappear sometime when the business is doing better."

To: Mark Fowler who wrote (126822)	6/19/2001 8:15:55 PM
From: Victor Lazlo	Respond to of 164684

<<Good then you must of bought Taro,Frx months ago like i did>> nope - I have SLMC, OPTN, ULAB I sold my Minimed after the MDT buyout news. << did you get some wtm when i mentioned it here aslo or Ebay. >> no and i did not buy affx at 50 like you, nor am i still holding CHK as it completely deflates, like you are! I'm too busy buying more USPIX !! <<No your too busy knocking everyone elses ideas you phucking prick! >> no, just the frawds around here which is a pretty short list- yoo !