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: Glenn D. Rudolph who wrote (6266)6/16/1998 7:54:00 PM
From: zebraspot  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
File Under: Has The Amazon Roach Motel Lit The "No-Vacancy" Sign Yet?


>> Dow Jones Newswires -- June 16, 1998
Amazon.com Up; Short-Covering, Investor Enthusiasm
Cited

By NICK WINGFIELD
Dow Jones Newswires

The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition

SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)--Shares of Amazon.com Inc. (AMZN) were up 10% in
afternoon trading Tuesday, continuing a two-day rally analysts attributed to a combination of
short-covering and investor enthusiasm for the Internet merchant's new on-line music store.

On Monday, shares of Amazon jumped 4 3/4, or 7.8%, to close at 65 3/4. Recently, the shares
were up 6 3/8, or 9.7%, to 72 1/8.

The company made its name selling books over the Internet, but last Thursday, it took the wraps
off a slick new storefront where shoppers can pick from a catalogue of more than 100,000
compact discs.

Analysts said the relatively limited supply of shares in Internet companies, including Amazon,
could also be contributing to the spike in the merchant's stock.

"There's just no float," said Henry Blodget, an analyst at CIBC Oppenheimer Corp. "The
smallest demand can drive a stock four points."<<

[Wow! But, come to think of it: what will a large *supply* do when it starts going down?]

>>An Amazon spokeswoman said the company had made no announcement in the past two days
that would be affecting its stock price.

-Nick Wingfield; 201-938-5099<<



To: Glenn D. Rudolph who wrote (6266)6/17/1998 12:29:00 AM
From: F The  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 164684
 
Glenn,
Thanks for defending my "silly question." I don't even think I asked him that questions. I might have made a statement that I had to add some money etc. But I am glad that you've clarified something worthwhile to know.

Felicia