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: Glenn D. Rudolph who wrote (22954)	10/25/1998 12:55:00 PM
From: H James Morris	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

Glen, todays LA times has a little piece on Wal-Mart is about earnings growth. It reads "A company's earnings growth will drive its stock price in the long run. That's a basic rule of investing that most stock owners grasp fairly quickly and hold on to forever. And for good reason. Consider Wal-Mart stores, for example. It earned .37c a share in1988. This year it's expected to earn $1.90 a share. That works to a 414% gain in ten years. Quite happy with numbers like those, Wall Street has bid Wal-Mart shares up tenfold since 1988". Since Wal-Mart was profitable from the getgo. I'm confused that Wall Street would bib up this 'Thing' when it has NO earnings, and the best case scenario I've seen from Mary and Jamie, is, a couple of cents, MAYBE in the next millennium. Please! What's wrong with this picture? The only thing I can come up with is, Mary telling It's the next MicroSoft and Jamie declaring it the next Wal-Mart. Of the two which one should we really trust? I personally don't trust either but, If you make me choose, I'll take Jamie, because at least he had the ball's to say he didn't think the 'Thing' was a value play like he does Wal-Mart.