posted 08-07-2000 11:44 AM         

Amazon really can turn profitable, eventually. Here's how. (source: CNNfn) http://cnnfn.cnn.com/2000/08/02/technology/amazon_profits/

posted 07-11-2000 10:46 AM         

Layoffs in the digital world fired up in May and June, and there may be more to come. (source: CNNfn) http://cnnfn.com/2000/06/30/career/q_dotcomayoffs/

posted 04-28-2000 05:58 PM         

> I feel that we are going to see greater stability in Net company stock prices in the future, because people will be better able to value them and that initial bubble has burst.
I disagree, per my prediction "I predict that the average beta of all stocks in the Merrill Lynch Internet Index will be 20% higher in May 2001 than in May 2000".
My rationale is that I don't think the average investor is getting any better at figuring out what a given internet company is worth. I do expect betas on established internet companies (AOL, YHOO, etc) to gradually fall, as they have been, but there will always be a steady stream of new startups that have a chance of either exploding or flaming out, and they will continue to be extremely volatile.

posted 04-28-2000 05:42 PM         

Your original post said this:

quote:

---

- fewer IPOs: Over the next few months there will be fewer IPOs, and far fewer blockbuster IPOs. But the IPO market will continue to oscillate between hot and cold for the foreseeable future.

- less advertising: If he means less total advertising, I disagree. It will continue to rise 5-10%/year for the long term. If he means less online advertising, I disagree. It will rise about 80% this year, about 60% next year, about 40% the following year, then about 20-30% until it reaches a quarter to a half of total advertising spending. If he means fewer startups wasting millions on bad advertising campaigns, then I agree that it will taper off, but only as soon as the amount of VC money flowing into such companies tapers off.

- massive consolidation: In some markets, yes. In others, no.

- more stable prices: If he means stock prices, I disagree. Volatility will further increase as online investing continues to move into the mainstream and as information continues to get disseminated more rapidly. If he means prices of online products and services, that's a tricky question, and will get trickier as shopping software agents proliferate. But that's beyond the scope of this discussion.

---

If you limited those statements to net companies (e-commerce, content, etc), not the market as a whole, would you stand by them? For example, I feel that we are going to see greater stability in Net company stock prices in the future, because people will be better able to value them and that initial bubble has burst. I doubt we will be seeing tiny portals or e-commerce companies finding the absurd valuations they had before this latest downturn. Do I feel the same way about wireless companies, or internet infrastructure companies? No. But for pure net companies, which I thought this guy was talking about, I disagree with some of your statements there. I agree wholeheartedly that total spending on online advertising is going to increase, mostly as offline companies focus more on advertising on the web. But, do I feel net companies will do less advertising on and offline? Yes.

posted 04-26-2000 03:36 PM         

To be honest, I haven't bothered to make any predictions on the things you have--that was not my point. The comments from the original post were not mine, they were from an article, and I thought they were worthy of being read. And I still don't feel that you and the author are dealing with the same issues, which is what I was trying to point out in that last post. Your predicitons, on their own are fine, but as a refutation of the article, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. I think his focus is much smaller than the big picture you are looking at. My opinion.

Moreover, I am not trying to keep you from making and posting your predictions--heck, keep them coming. I presented another writer's comments, which you seemed to dismiss. Fair enough, but I was curious why someone should listen to you instead of the writer. Answer: they shouldn't, nor should they listen to him instead of you--that is, unless they know more about both sources of information than I do. All an investor can do with the glut of information out there is take all of it in, think critically about the sources, and make decisions based on all the factors. Now, everyone has some numbers to base their evaluation of you as a forecaster. Same story with every other author who puts their predictions/opinions out there for the masses. More power to you.

I really don't feel we're of differing opinions, it is just that we're not on the same page yet.