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: Don Westermeyer who wrote (1550)	2/11/1998 6:13:00 PM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Interesting everyone says 'look at AOL' now. In the past it was NSCP. Sure, but AOL's rally has lasted six years and counting. I'd say that at any given time the risk/reward ratio for AOL was too high, i.e. you had more chances of losing money than making any (consider the whole sector, like Delphi, Compuserve, GEnie and Prodigy to get an idea of the odds against), yet AOL pulled the trick and anybody who shorted it came out a sore loser. Or Cybercash? or Spyglass? There are lots of examples of high-fliers that crashed! But AMZN has high revenues to back up its claims to fame. I think comparing it against Cybercash is apples and oranges. Amazon should be compared to NSCP, AOL and IOM. What can you conclude? That the risks of playing either side, long or short, are just too high. You want to short a high flier, I prefer the odds with Yahoo: they don't have the revenues, and Softbank is under a lot of pressure to sell....

To: Don Westermeyer who wrote (1550)	2/11/1998 6:28:00 PM
From: Alomex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

If the stock was $20/share AMZN would still be a very risky speculative bet. Now, now, get real. I'm big time bearish on this stock, but I would have no problem paying $20 per share for Amazon. It would give it a forward P/S ratio of 1.5 for a rapidly growing company. Quite a while ago I mentioned here that this sort of rapidly growing companies gain value rapidly. $18 per share was expensive early on 1997. Today is a reasonable price. IMHO the share price goes up an average of $0.25 to $0.50 per week, as long as the growth is still there. This makes the price of the stock a moving target. At some point revenue growth hits a wall and the big correction back to this moving target ensues. This is why AOL, even after the big correction, failed to make money for most shorts: it corrected to a moving target that had gone up quite a bit with time.