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: Bill Harmond who wrote (16944)	9/11/1998 9:47:00 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

You could have paid $5 or $3 for AOL in 1994. Yeah, yeah, yeah, and you could've bought Dell for some fraction of a penny, right? What does that have to do with anything? 1994 was a flat to down year (with a pretty good dip in the middle for the Nasdaq especially) that was followed by the biggest 3 1/2 year bull run ever. Earnings were growing strongly as was the economy. Now, earnings are falling, economies around the world are falling as will ours, and we have only just begun the bear market for large caps. The high flyers are the last to fall and the tulips like AMZN have much more ground to cover before they bottom.

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (16944)	9/11/1998 10:08:00 PM
From: Derrick P.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

William, If AMZN was selling for $5 or $3, I might buy it. Best Regards, Derrick

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (16944)	9/12/1998 11:50:00 AM
From: H James Morris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

William<You could have paid $5 or $3 for AOL in 1994.> Please get current, this is Sept 1998, or have you missed the Asian meltdown also?

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (16944)	9/12/1998 6:39:00 PM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

There's nothing wrong with holding Amazon through the market's gyrations. I believe that Amazon is an exceptional long-term investment at $40, $140, or $75. You could have paid $5 or $3 for AOL in 1994. William, There you go comparing AOL to AMZN again. They are entirely different. Glenn

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (16944)	9/12/1998 7:25:00 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

>> You could have paid $5 or $3 for AOL in 1994. << You could have paid $114 (adjusted for a 5 for 1 split) for RCA back in 1929. Back then RCA was the Microsoft of the 20's. They were dominant, and on the cutting edge of "wireless" communications. The company never paid dividends (they were a growth stock) and the stock had a PE of 72. The Fed discount rate was 6% and commercial paper yielded 6.5% RCA rose 936% from 1925-1929, from a split adjusted $11~~~$114. Over the next three years it fell 97% to less than $3/share. "Don't part with your illusions; when they are all gone you may still exist, but you have ceased to live." ---Mark Twain