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: GST who wrote (37509)	1/28/1999 7:53:00 PM
From: IceShark	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 164684

GS, I'm not going to educate you on the potential game that is about to be played. You are at an University, so do you own research. -g- But you might want to look at Reg. S floats and what happens. This is a bit different since AMZn isn't on the ropes, yet. But it does make one wonder if an experienced hedge fund player (Bozos) saw the writing on the wall and acted a year before problems. Quite smart, actually. An old saying is "When the sun is shining, bankers will give you unbrellas (money) hand over fist; at the first sign of rain, they want all the unbrellas back, now. -g- regards, Ice

To: GST who wrote (37509)	1/28/1999 8:52:00 PM
From: Circle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

The danger in shorting a stock is the possibility of infinite losses. This convertible caps your potential loss at 157 (though you are exposed again above 200). Meanwhile you're earning a 4.75% coupon plus your short rebate. The convertible will also obviously draw away long-only funds that would have otherwise purchased or held common. You will see some selling of common by mutual funds that are replacing it with the convertible. The idea that this offering is non-dilutive simply because it is "debt" is silly. In fact, once the shorts get control of this stock, Bezos may wish the float was larger. Not to be overly negative, but I also find the use of proceeds (for fully-automated distribution centers) pretty worrisome. These sorts of things generally cost twice as much, take twice as long to build, and work half as well as expected (e.g., the fully-automated baggage sorting fiasco at the Denver airport).