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: Skeeter Bug who wrote (7260)	6/23/1998 9:26:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

PowerPacket: Anyone for Tax on Internet Commerce? By Steve Harmon Senior Investment Analyst Internet.com "Where Wall Street Meets The Web" Nothing puts fear and loathing in Las Vegas or Wall Street like the mention of tax. The stocks of Internet commerce companies especially, including Amazon.com, Onsale, Egghead.com, CDnow and N2K are vulnerable to possible backlash if the U.S. or any other government starts applying taxation to transactions. Meanwhile, Internet service providers could be hurting if a usage tax gets applied to them as the huge telephone giants beg their Washington contacts to levy the old-world tariffs in the monopoly-free environment of the World Wide Web. In this special Internet Stock Report we gathered some of our notable readers together and asked: "Should governments tax Internet commerce?" "Governments can tax whatever they want, but if they tax Internet commerce they will lose out. Looking ahead, I don't know exactly how we make the transition, but I believe that in the long run we will probably end up taxing real estate since that's the main thing that can't move from one physical jurisdiction to another. Now if you mean Net governments, they probably will tax Net commerce - with "taxes" otherwise known as transaction fees, commissions, memberships, subscriptions . . . FWIW, still looking ahead: The element of choice is key, and I want to make sure that my browser vendor, for example, does not tax me, directly or indirectly, especially if I have no choice of browser. - Esther Dyson, Internet & PC luminary "What I am certain about is that I do think they will want to! Assuming e-commerce grows to projections, U.S. state governments will push for this at the very least to gain some additional "revenue sharing" with the U.S. federal government. On the broader scale of the world, national governments will probably be forced to apply taxation merely at the corporate level and not at the transactional level. There will be too much technology change and loopholes to plug to properly determine, tax, and deposit e-commerce transactions. I believe that governments should not tax e-commerce transactions as it will drastically affect their nation's ability to move into the "new economy." -George Zachary, venture capitalist, Mohr Davidow Ventures "I do believe that governments should tax Internet commerce, just as they should any other commerce. The question for me is should they tax at the point of origin or destination? The implications are profound in the marketshare to be gained or lost by organizations moving offshore to do business, an inevitability in the Internet. Instant wealth will be created in countries that have the lowest tax rate. At the same time, one would not expect the same level of government protection from fraud in highly unregulated environments. Confidence is key to making commerce happen, so we should strive to set some boundaries and taxes should help to pay for this (in a perfect world). Bottom line, I'm choking as I say that governments should tax commerce (not to support the billion dollar screwdriver business, but legitimate commercial transactions). -David Takata, stock analyst, Gruntal & Co. Investment Bank Steve Harmon's PowerPacket is brought to you by Mecklermedia's InternetNews.com & is a special edition of Internet Stock Report. If your business is the Web, Internet Stock Report is a must read. Spread the word and join thousands of other readers including Microsoft's Bill Gates, Yahoo's Jerry Yang, Hummer Winblad's Ann Winblad, AOL's Ted Leonsis and more! Accolades for Internet Stock Report: "Fresh and provocative" -CBS Marketwatch, which named Steve Harmon one of the top Internet stock analysts and only independent one honored "I am a huge fan of Steve Harmon's crack analysis" -Kleiner Perkins' John Doerr

To: Skeeter Bug who wrote (7260)	6/24/1998 1:33:00 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

Hi Skeeter Bug; Well, I have to admit, I bought AMZN today. A daytrader reports: I bought and sold three times, 200 shares each. Lost 11/32, made 1/4, and made 1/2, overall made 13/32. I'm kind of embarassed about losing money on the first trade, cause I was up around 1/4 at one time in it. Too much greed. Purchases were at 13:57:05, 14:50:40, and 14:59:51, EST. I owned the stock for 5:13, 0:40 and 2:12, or a total of 8 minutes, 5 seconds. This means I only had my money at risk for about 2% of the day, which reduced my risk considerably. In addition, I've got level-2 Nasdaq quotes, so I can tell how much depth there is to the market below the highest bid. Thus when I go into a trade, I know about what my loss will be if the stock starts to turn against me. And if that stock starts to go against me, I dump it hard and fast. If you have to stay in the game to earn a living, you have to use stop losses. Incidentally, professional traders have a practice of limiting the amount of money they have at risk on any one trade. This prevents them from losing their capital through a series of unlucky or stupid plays. The usual limitation is 2% of capital per trade. A trader with a $100,000 account should only put about $2000 at risk on any one trade, or any one collection of very similar trades. Since AMZN can move about 10 points in a day, this means no more than 200 shares of AMZN in that $100,000 account. I believe that owning more is what the pros call "overtrading" and effectively turns investing into gambling. I only trade 200 shares of AMZN, cause it is illiquid as all hell. With 200 shares I can almost always get out at the next price level. With 500 shares, you might end up having to use two price levels. Recently the stock has predictably ran up another 50 cents or more whenever it sets a new all time high. This is what I've been trading on, I buy when I see it make a new high, then offer it out into momentum. I won't usually make the whole move, cause of slippage and other delays. As far as a long term play, AMZN is still running on very high volume. So don't short it yet. Wait until it has a day when the volume is roughly half what it is right now. To go into the trade earlier is know as "picking a top", and it is not a good idea. So all you bears, limit your share size to small enough amount that it doesn't leave you bummed out. (Try trading with a 2% limit. You will find it very relaxing, unemotional, and rewarding.) Also don't try to pick tops arbitrarily, instead learn some technical analysis to get you into these trades at reasonable times. If you are dead set on shorting AMZN, I suggest looking over the chart for the last year carefully. You might look at how long upswings and downswings in the stock last, and how much it moves during those swings. Short the stock when it is in an identifiable down swing, but not so far into it that it is close to turning on you. I suggest watching the volume, and waiting until the (mindless) daytraders get tired of it and quit selling it to each other... -- Carl