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 (4539)	5/20/1998 1:37:00 AM
From: Gary Korn	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

Mark and others, With so much new cash on hand (can't recall, something over $300MM), I wonder whether AMZN management might be less careful guarding that horde then they were when they had only about 1/3 of that amount readily available. What I'm trying to say is that, as many here likely have experienced, you get more careful with your cash when there is less of it available. The same applies to companies. I've seen the cash crunches come and go at a number of them. Seems to be a typical psychological reaction to a tightening cash position. On the flip side, waste and boondoggles inevitably ensue when cash is easy. Therefore, a long might be somewhat concerned that AMZN might tend to more freely burn its new found cash, almost all of which is borrowed money. Gary Korn

To: Mark Fowler who wrote (4539)	5/20/1998 10:47:00 PM
From: Mark Myword	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

>> i got a kick out of your analogy of comparing selling books online through Amzn to selling chickens through some third rate, fast food joint << Mark , obviously the analogy was to the extreme market overvaluation of a faddish , commodity business that was a new concept. Boston Chicken is not third-rate , as you know. Their product is very good , actually. The problem is they don't make any money selling it , and the equity is worthless. It was a super-hot stock that was highly touted by the promoters, underwriters , etc. Too bad it lost over 90% of its value in 18 months. Of course, that could never happen to an internet stock....no way.