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: IMPRISTlNE who wrote (16323)	9/6/1998 8:43:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

From TMF on AOL: Subject: Re: Merrill Lynch says SELL Date: Thu, Sep 3, 1998 5:23 AM From: ArcheLogos Message-id: <1998090309233701.FAA05607@ladder01.news.aol.com> <<<Finally, a company (and its biz plan) and a stock are two different things. One can believe that the plan is a winner and still believe that fair value for the stock is well south of where we are today (although perhaps not as far south as the permabears insist).>>> Greg, The sole reason Amazon is where it is today and where it was last week in terms of price is summed up in this manner: The stock got hammered by a downgrade from a certain analyst when it was at 46 pre-split. The stock fell in one day to $36, which would be $18 now. When the stock resumed its upswing, many short players jumped in thinking they had a sure bet on the downside. The company was already rising in sales and the projections for future sales were not far off from the actual numbers, so the company had no intrinsic value increases. The momentum players and aggressive growth funds jumped into this, knowing they had instant liquidity from the short-covering. Subsequently, everytime the stock went up, short-covering was imminent. Sharks that they were, they smelt blood and proceeded to squeeze it out of the shorts who shorted at 50. This went on up to 90 dollars per share until it based a little bit. After a stock-split, further short-covering and momentum buying sent the stock from 50 to 60 in one single day. New shorts jumped in and faced a similar fate all over again all the way up to 100 plus per share. Every time the stock dipped , new shorts jumped in, but were countered by reverse psychogist momentum buyers who knew additional fear would be faced on a strong retracement. They were able to do this because the funds were still in the stock and the float was low. Lower volume rallies sent the stock up 8 to 10 points at a time. Meanwhile analysts kept their buy ratings on the stock, although their price targets were actually thrice exceed by the stock price. In the face of confirming news by the company that no profits were upcoming (1999 used to be projected as break-even or near it), the analysts still dealt irresponsibly with the issue of no profits, increased losses and ensuing competition. A double-tongued pundit just this week reiterated a buy and said that he might easily raise his price target to match his buy rating. Well, until he does -- it's a contradiction in terms! ... buy rating, price target == 1/2 current trading price. That 's why I oppose the apologetic comments for the disparity between the price and the actual vision and performance of this company. Everybody's selling on the net with a plan. Do you know any CEO who says he doesn't have a plan? Sincerely, now, you guys can do better than that. I know I'm hitting a little hard on this, but I've heard too many double-tongued comments. Take a look at the projections and the Company's balance sheet. They'll be insolvent at this rate in 1 &1/2 quarters. Debt will continue to accrue and compound and eat at the bottom line along with marketing expenses. Truly this company should be trading at 10 dollars per share, but it's not because it's so obviously overvalued and so driveable by pushy buyers who see a crowded traffice jam of shorts piling in to cast their vote on the obvious fundamental overvaluation. Sincerely, A. Logos

To: IMPRISTlNE who wrote (16323)	9/6/1998 10:00:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

Estimates and actuals are both eps before extras and other non-recurring items DISTRIBUTION OF EPS ESTIMATES HISTOGRAM AS OF 08/29/98 AMAZON.COM INC FY1 - 9812 FY2 - 9912 13 ESTS. 13 ESTS. O X X O X XX O OXXXX X X X X X OO XX X X X X !-----!-----!-----!-----! !-----!-----!-----!-----! -1.98 -1.68 -1.38 -1.08 -0.78 -2.00 -1.60 -1.20 -0.80 -0.40 "X" = EPS ESTIMATE ($) "O" = THREE MOST RECENT ESTS. 09/98 QTR: AMAZON.COM INC 12/98 QTR: EXP.REPT: 10/15/98 EXP.REPT: 01/22/99 O O XX O O X OX O XXXX X X X X X X X XXX X !-----!-----!-----!-----! !-----!-----!-----!-----! -0.69 -0.54 -0.39 -0.24 -0.09 -0.66 -0.51 -0.36 -0.21 -0.06 MEAN -0.48 (13) MEAN -0.46 (12) MOST ACC -0.59 ( 3) MOST ACC -0.53 ( 3) ------------------------------------------------------------