home | welcome | free registration | new posts | hot boards | ipos | earnings | overheard
research | news | portfolio | charts 
Get the latest investing news and analysis delivered to
your inbox every evening with InvestorGuide Daily.



UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
  Investorville
  Ask Any Question
  Internet stocks...general

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Internet stocks...general
charlie1
posted 10-22-1999 10:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for charlie1      Reply w/Quote
James,
If by indefinitely you mean forever, then the answer would be no. The value of a stock is based on its expected future cash flows. If they company never had any, the stock would be worth nothing except the psychological value or whatever other happiness/sentimental value it brings to the owner. Another part of the value the owner gets is voting rights, but individuals rarely own enough stock to make that worth anything.

If you are arguing whether internet stocks continue to be valued highly by investors even if they are in the red for many years then i'd say you have a good argument. Investors are beginning to ask lots of net companies when they are going to be profitable, but there are enough forward looking investors that they are still willing to buy the stock while its money-making days are many years away.
I'm not saying this is definitely a good investing strategy, but it is one that enough investors are using that it causes these stocks to keep going up while posting losses.
Good luck in your arguments/discussions with friends. Go ahead and bring the discussion on investorville as well if you like. We enjoy these types of discussions here.
charlie

Glycerol
posted 10-21-1999 01:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Glycerol      Reply w/Quote
Im a university student and i met with some friends and an issue on internet stocks came up. It was proposed that companies such as yahoo.com, for example, could indefinitely claim net losses year after year and that their stock would continue to rise. To my knowledge that would seem completely against the definition of stocks and the stock market. Although short term, stocks may rise or fall but in the long run don't they need to eventually reflect the value of the underlying business?
I would appreciate an answer hopefully with a good explaination so i can better my arguement...or know to shut up. =)
thanks
James

All times are EST (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Home Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.43
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.

top | search | help | feedback | newsletter | InvestorGuide | InvestorWords glossary

Press ctrl-D to bookmark this page for future reference.
By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use.
Copyright 2001 InvestorGuide.com Inc.