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: KeepItSimple who wrote (30643)	12/21/1998 12:05:00 AM
From: Victor Lazlo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

KIS - PLEASE RE-DIRECT YOUR POST TO GLENN. I AM NOT GLENN. Victor <<Glenn, the barrage of articles you posted was interesting, but once again SGC disappointed me with their doubletalk. They spent 4 paragraphs pointing out various equity bubbles of the past, and how they all ended badly for the majority of investors, then in one sentence they finsihed by saying "We don't think the internet stocks will do the same." They said that with a straight face, and with nothing to back it up. They didn't even bother to mention that the internet stocks as a group have put even the most speculative biotech stocks of the 80's to shame with their mania runups. I do note however, that my post of two weeks ago describing that Amazon had given up on selling physical merchandise and would soon move to a model of e-middleman with other retailers has now been accepted by the analyst community as the truth. But once again, they neglect to mention that it was the utter failure of Amazon's original business model that forced Bezos to make this move. Bezos has proved spectacularly that Amazon could never make a dime in profit with business model #1, and now they want investors to take a leap of faith and hope (to the tune of 280 bucks per share) that biz model #2 will do better. Oh, I saw "You've got mail" tonight, and it sucked. :) >> KIS - PLEASE RE-DIRECT YOUR POST TO GLENN. I AM NOT GLENN. Victor

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (30643)	12/21/1998 12:09:00 AM
From: Victor Lazlo	Respond to of 164684

kis, you really need some rest.

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (30643)	12/21/1998 12:09:00 AM
From: jach	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

Merrill Lynch analyst Jonathan Cohen, who has for months maintained a ''reduce'' rating on Amazon, rebutted Blodget's view, saying on Thursday that Amazon's stock could trade as low as $50 in the year or so. ''Amazon.com enjoys almost no significant competitive advantage in a market characterized by razor-thin operating margins,'' he said in a recent report. ''The company's success in generating revenues has come at the cost of very great operating losses, which we expect to continue for a substantial period of time,'' he said. Indeed, Amazon.com's third quarter loss, excluding one-time items, was $0.49 a share, versus $0.21 in the previous year, as marketing and development costs more than tripled. Analysts expect Amazon.com to lose money for at least the next two years. Wheat First Union on Thursday downgraded its rating on Amazon's shares to hold from outperform, citing concens that fourth quarter results may fall short of predictions.

To: KeepItSimple who wrote (30643)	12/21/1998 8:45:00 AM
From: Glenn D. Rudolph	Respond to of 164684

Glenn, the barrage of articles you posted was interesting, but once again SGC disappointed me with their doubletalk. This is typical. They spent 4 paragraphs pointing out various equity bubbles of the past, and how they all ended badly for the majority of investors, then in one sentence they finsihed by saying "We don't think the internet stocks will do the same." They said that with a straight face, and with nothing to back it up. They didn't even bother to mention that the internet stocks as a group have put even the most speculative biotech stocks of the 80's to shame with their mania runups. Their job is to hype and they did just that. Reality does not matter. <iBezos has proved spectacularly that Amazon could never make a dime in profit with business model #1, and now they want investors to take a leap of faith and hope (to the tune of 280 bucks per share) that biz model #2 will do better. Bezo's business model was doomed to fail from day one. That has been my opinion and one that I have been posting since AMZN was at $40. Model two will fail also. Good retailers do not need to be located on the Amazon page. No reason at all. Glenn