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: Jay8088 who wrote (22439)	10/21/1998 1:00:00 PM
From: Jan Crawley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164687

And how does the 'fundamentalist' Mary Meeker justify them via DCF? Does she really believe it's exponential increase all the way? Hi Jay, how are you. :)) Sorry to intercept and try to clarify Mary's point of view: she stated clearly in her synopsis that Amzn had 10 million float and 8.7 million short interest, a supberb condition for her clients to get in and make $$$. I think that most of her clients came in to Amzn in May/98.

To: Jay8088 who wrote (22439)	10/21/1998 1:43:00 PM
From: Olu Emuleomo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164687

Thanks for the thoughtful analysis - even if I don't agree with 70% of points made. If you have time, could you explain why you are buying these 100 times revenue internet stocks? Jay, Does this excerpt from Jimmy Rogers count? "Once the crowd takes command, a company and its stock become unhitched. The stock diverges--either up or down--from the inherent value of the business and its assets." This is the whole basis of momentum investing :-)) --Olu E.

To: Jay8088 who wrote (22439)	10/22/1998 1:47:00 AM
From: Bill Harmond	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164687

>>why you are buying these 100 times revenue internet stocks I bought them 1. because I think monetary conditions are ideal, 2. because each one addresses a huge, open-ended world-wide market opportunity, 3. because each one displays leadership and share gains in its segment, 4. because each one is benefiting from the principle of increasing returns, and 5. because each enjoys institutional sponsorship. Point 4 is critical. That may sound simple, but the dynamics between those attributes make these companies easily worth risking my money on at this time and at these prices. Wildly-expensive stocks are not necessarily a bad investment. It is certainly a huge risk factor, but not a disqualifier. If that were the case, $1,000 invested in AOL's IPO in March, 1992, wouldn't be worth $110,000. As long as monetary conditions are OK, the right expensive stocks can be the best investments. Montgomery published an eye-opening piece a couple years ago that tracked the 25-best performing stocks during the last small-stock bull market (1991-mid 1996). Don't hold me to the exact numbers because I don't have a copy any longer, but it showed that the 25 sold at a median 100x forward earnings, but still had a composite gain if 1,600% over the 5 years. If I remember correctly, the top-performing stock was Glenayre. You can go back an check it out.