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 : InfoSpace (INSP): Where GNET went! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: option007 who wrote (6850)	6/6/1999 11:05:00 AM
From: Dr. Zax	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 28311

OK as #9 I will bite. >>I HAVE NO POSITIONS IN GNET Then why do you care? >>My opinion is not biased one way or the other as I have no >>positions. You obviously have a bias, everyone has a bias. Yours looks pretty negative (maybe because you are jealous you don't own it?), but I will give you the benefit of the doubt for answering these questions. >>Answer me these questions: OK - but you should really put a "?" at the end of a question >>when price went to $199 why did managment not want higher price. (?) It is not the goal of this company to hype the stock price, they are building a business and the earnings and profits thus stock price will follow. >>when price is at mid ninetes, why does Allan not increase >>position (?) Allen is now and "insider," he must file a report with the SEC to buy more. He also already made a bid... he has now moved on to other things. He has all he needs for now. You can't know what he is thinking, he may still be wanting more. >>why does Russell say Allan is smart to only pay $90 for Gnet (?) When Russell said that GNET was at c. 140. A 66% gain in a month sounds smart to me. Well if you look at the question... it would have been even smarter to pay $80 but still smart to pay $100. This statement says nothing about floors or ceilings. It was a smart INVESTMENT. >>why if price is cheap is volume so low as not to attract buyers. (?) Umm... what? It doesn't follow that "volume so low" does not "attract buyers." but anyway... low volume means that both people are not selling and people are not buying. Internutz in general are out of favor, until that turns around, there won't be a lot of buyers. >>why does Gnet not follow leads like Yhoo and Aol; big jumps. (?) 3% on a normal day isn't a big enough jump for you? I have seen several days where GNET tops the largest movers board... both up and down. Why do you want to be like YHOO and AOL, if you want YHOO and AOL, trade YHOO and AOL. >> why is no one buying with Paine Webber conference and stock >> split.(?) They are... >>why are IPO's faltering. (?) supply and demand. There are too many of them, but what does that have to do with GNET it IPOed a long time ago? >> A stock that loses $100 should come back fast. Why not Gnet? "should" ? what planet are you living on? except for CMGI and YHOO and BRK.a (or any stock valued over $1000), I challenge you to name 10 stocks that have moved 100 points up in a month... then how many of those made that move after dropping 100 points? GNET will do fine. >>Reports say viewers on Internets are decreasing. Where? I guess maybe you mean that each of several major portals showed declines in unique viewership in march by way of Media Matrix's calculations. Well... that is because there are too many portals, but you will also notice that GNET actually increase in unique viewership while the others declined. >>Stock ticker indicated on Friday no big purchases. well you punctuation is correct. This means there were no big sales. >>Barrons says people are so brainwashed on internets they buy no reason just like biotech stocks. Well, there are many similarities, but this is Barrons. >>briefing recommends only to buy stocks that have held well in correction. $100 loss is hardly doing well. Done a lot better than some others... $$ drop doesn't mean anything, what is important is % >>there is a huge lot of sellers who own thousands of shares and are a >>liability to Gnet. These are people who bought at $70, $60 etc. They >>are extremely nervous. Who says? I am not ;) these people are LONGS. That means they hold for a LONG time, based on the value of a company. They are INVESTORS. GNET is not going to disappear in the near future and is a very good INVESTMENT. >>Judge for yourself. OK >> Just my views. No Kidding! Dr. Zax

To: option007 who wrote (6850)	6/6/1999 1:34:00 PM
From: yzfool	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28311

I would caution you not to make any analogy between biotech and internet. I have a biochemistry degree, and worked in a biotech lab at Mass. General in the mid eighties, and after med shcool, in the late 80's/early 90's I successfully darted in and out of biotech stocks. With one exception, AMGEN, I held biotechs for quick and large gains always selling into strength because I sensed too much enthusiasm and, as you say, some of the biotechs got a little ahead of themselves. To simplify, biotech was nothing more than pharmaceuticals on steroidal hype. The internet is a different animal altogether and its daily pervasiveness is a clue to its true investment potential. To simplify, it is a convergence point for all forms of communication; this notion in and of itself has greatness and does not require any hype.