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: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (59960)	6/2/1999 1:06:00 PM
From: astyanax	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164685

Critical analysis of Abelson/Barrons anti-AMZN history: Various news articles and analysts ascribed one of Alan Abelson's (who thinks AMZN is worth around $10) latest anti-AMZN articles as the leading catalyst for the stock diving. And further attacks by Barron's are worrying AMZN shareholders. I found it quite puzzling that Barron's could scare away investors from this company. We're talking about Barron's, here folks. Like I said in an earlier post: "After all, Barron's history at covering and forecasting the Net sector is abysmal. Taking Net sector advice from Barron's is like asking for potent sexual techniques from the Reverend Pat Robertson." At the risk of having my ass flamed to a crisp, I believe there is a "generational gap" here. Empirical evidence shows, factually, that younger people (raised on the Net) spend a greater proportion of their time analyzing the Net sector. In fact, Amerindo Technology Fund has been on the vanguard of Internet Stocks (Broadcast.com, Ebay, Inktomi, etc - most since IPO) and has been in the top 1% (3 out of 10,000) of mutual fund performers for the past year. Portfolio manager Alberto Vilar specifically mentioned the "generational gap" for Net stocks in an interview (ironically, Vilar's in his fifties). Alan Abelson is 73 years old. Much to my surprise, I found an article he wrote before I was even born!! (1975 Business Week). Referred to by the press as: "feisty," "combative," "acerbic," and even "Wall Street's bad news king" - he has a penchant for writing scathing attacks to deflate market darlings (a la Christopher Byron, the current expert). Anyone ignoring Abelson so far has made a killing in the stock market. TMF dismisses Barron's and I'm wondering who listens to Barron's. I get the impression it's from older, wealthier clients who aren't in the vanguard of Net investing yet want the profits and have recently ploughed some $ into the sector, only to withdraw it when Barron's scares the hell out of them with Doomsday articles. Scott Cooley, senior analyst at Morningstar, made an interesting analogy regarding Abelson and Merrill Lynch (which was blindsided by the Net): "Saying Merrill Lynch & Company has gotten a few things wrong over the years is a lot like claiming ALAN ABELSON'S [emph added] market predictions aren't always right: It's true, but it kinda understates the point. During the 1990s, whenever there was an opportunity in investing, Merrill was there to blow it." morningstar.net _Merrill Finally Ready to Join the Party_ The Motley Fool's article makes a good point that Barron's track record makes it a "contrary indicator". So now looks like a good time to buy AMZN for any long-term investors waiting on the sideline. I'm shocked and disturbed that Barron's has engaged in sensationalism to provoke a reaction. It's outrageous that they used the story and cover illustration to portray Bezos in a strikingly lurid light. Bezos truly is a visionary, pioneering Internet retailing at a time when he was openly mocked and harassed by many onlookers. He is not a huckster hustling a stock. Barron's suggests that Bezos has something to hide in refusing a Barron's interview. First of all, Bezos often declines interviews (like the current issue of Business2.0 lionizing him). Second of all, he knows Barron's was setting him up for yet another attack. And attack Barron's did - decrying "misleading" financial statements rife with "gimmickry" and relying on Bezos' "charisma" to inflate the stock. But anyone who follows the company closely knows that Bezos dedicates all his efforts towards Amazon's evolving business strategies and very little attention to his stock price - which could be comforting or dismaying to shareholders depending on what kind of investor you are. 22 analysts track the stock. 10 are strong buy and only 6 are at the lowest rating - "hold". The article features only one analyst's quote - and of course she was one of the 6 holds. Why did they silence the voice of the other 16 analysts? I'm always open to reading about Amazon's weaknesses - real or perceived - and have seen some valid, convincing arguments. For a magazine that has held such sway with AMZN's price, I would expect something breaking revelations. As others have mentioned, however; this story was a massive disappointment. Basically, it was a collated version of various arguments written in past articles critical of Amazon. Apparently, they've been collecting all this information and waiting for the stock to fall and then afterwards turn it into a provocative cover story. My favorite rehashed criticism in the article is the infamous "Wait till Wal-Mart..." If I had a dollar for everytime I've heard the "Wait until Wal-Mart/BarnesandNoble get online!!" argument then I'd be so rich that I'd buy 1,000 copies of "Market Timing For Dummies" from Amazon for Mr. Abelson. I've heard the "Wait till..." argument since 1996 - it's 1999 and I'm still waiting. For more info, check out today's piece by Adam Lashinsky in TheStreet.com (on Abelson's history regarding AMZN) or The Motley Fool's article. - Netconductor.com