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.

Pastimes : The Justa & Lars Honors Bob Brinker Investment Club -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Allan Harris who wrote (5603)	6/4/1999 2:48:00 PM
From: Carl R.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15132

Allan, just so long as you realize that most internet stocks will turn out to be worthless someday, and realize the risks you are taking, I have no problem. As you are no doubt aware there were probably 1-200 different auto makers in the 20's, and investments in a few of them would have been richly rewarded, while investments in most of the others would have ended up worthless. While I haven't done a comparison, I suspect that rather than buying 100 shares of each in 1926, a better strategy would have been to wait 10-20 years until after the losers had been flushed out of the market, and then investing in the winners. Carl

To: Allan Harris who wrote (5603)	6/4/1999 4:37:00 PM
From: Hank Stamper	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15132

Allan, "Doesn't matter....you got my point, that there are extraordinary changes taking place in the way the world does business and the net is at the forefront of it all. By the time the traditional valuation numbers start making sense, it may be too late to buy. " In the mid to late 20s, this is exactly what was written about the radio stock craze. It's in the newspaper archives. I just fret, that there is an isomorphism between then and now. Then, radio was poised to bring huge changes--and it did. Then, the stocks ran up to P/Es well beyond traditional valuation levels, for a while. Then, everbody was right--radio on the driving cusp of an explosive change! Except, those who chased high P/Es on the theory that traditional valuations did not matter, got creamed. I just fret that if I try to chase these P/Es, I'll get creamed. I just cannot figure out, why this internet craze is any different from the Tulipomania-like forces that correct excess. (I even have gobs of tulips planted in my garden.) Ciao, David Todtman

To: Allan Harris who wrote (5603)	6/4/1999 5:03:00 PM
From: Justa Werkenstiff	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 15132

Alan: You made some good money on your nets and Bob would be the first to congratulate you. BUT you bought BEFORE the big run. Nice move. BUT Brinker's purpose in criticizing the nets, in part, is to make sure the clueless listeners don't get caught up in the hype and buy at the TOP and get CLOCKED. I saw just part of the CNBC Memorial Day special, and all I saw was people from the audience asking about the nets and easy money. Brinker is talking to those clueless in his general audience in a manner to keep them from making a foolish mistake with their hard earned money. So re: " I fully expect that The B-Man will comment this weekend on the Internet Daytraders and Gunslingers crying in their milk, beer, ginger ale, or whatever, over the weakness in the net stocks over the past month or so." I say do whatever it takes, B - Man. BUT please recall that Brinker has never to my recollection criticized or ridiculed any caller who held net stocks and called with a question, except for maybe Tony who deserved it. AND Brinker is right when he says value always rules in the end. So it is with the nets. There will be some winners but most will be losers just like in the biotech craze. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BIOTECHS AND THE INTERNETS. The only difference is the subject matter.