SI
SI
discoversearch

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: H James Morris who wrote (5943)6/13/1998 7:50:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug  Respond to of 164684
 
hj, the author is right in many ways and will be proven so. however, the caveat is that right or wrong doesn't matter until everyone else figures it out. this can take a while ;-)

i watched mu double just before their pricing collapsed (actually, during at the end) and watched in amazement at the level of obvious idiocy that took place. shock. i couldn't believe it. well, mu sunk to the low $20s and is headed for 1. the single digits or 2. insolvency.

reality will set in for amzn. whether it is from $60 $80 or $100 i don't know. however, we are reaching the absurd levels and ther overall market looks weak. once the market goes so will the rampant speculation that unproven companies are taking over the world. at least, i'm betting that way ;-)

not shorting. too risky. putting. may wait a little to reload in puts. amzn may go a little higher. or, it may stay the same and the premies will drop due to lower volatility.

good luck.



To: H James Morris who wrote (5943)6/14/1998 8:52:00 AM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 

Here's the link again:
westergaard.com:8080/Byron/amazon9719.html>
Sorry can't transfer the link. I believe its the original Barron's article that convinced the
millions to go short the first time.


H,

Nice article. Thank you!!!!

Glenn



To: H James Morris who wrote (5943)6/14/1998 9:04:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph  Respond to of 164684
 
From The New York Times. This is worth a read.

nytimes.com