posted 01-22-2001 06:46 PM         

---

Company Name (Ticker): reported, expected, same q last year

FreeMarket Inc. (FMKT): -$0.27, -$0.32, N/A

posted 10-23-2000 06:23 PM         

---

Company Name (Ticker): reported, expected, same q last year

FreeMarkets (FMKT): -$0.33, -$0.42, -$0.35

posted 07-24-2000 06:35 PM         

---

Company Name (Ticker): reported, expected, same q last year

FreeMarkets (FMKT): -$0.34, -$0.39, n/a

posted 04-18-2000 01:54 PM         

---

Yes, I agree that underwriter reccomendations are a joke, but the company is moving toward profitability. The stock bottomed out at $39, off its high of $370.
It now sits around $60. They should be profitable in less than two years according to projections. Sounds like a buy at current levels.

Jake

BTW, the whole sector moved up on its positive earnings report.

posted 04-18-2000 01:06 PM         

---

Can you believe this?

"Gains in FreeMarkets after its report lent a positive bias to business-to-business plays. It was up 7 1/2, or 14%, to 60 1/4 after a loss of 24 cents a share vs. Street estimates of a 28-cent loss. Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette reiterated a buy rating on the stock along with a whopping 550 12-month price target. DLJ has done underwriting for FreeMarkets."

Seems somewhat irresponsible to me...550??? From an underwriter no less...Though we will see. There are no reasons other than the earnings report here, so anyone know why DLJ has picked this number?

posted 04-17-2000 06:40 PM         

---

Reported, Expected, Same q last year

FreeMarkets (FMKT): -$0.24, -$0.28, not public

posted 01-06-2000 11:56 AM         

---

Get this:
"Three underwriters of FreeMarkets' (FMKT:Nasdaq) sizzling December IPO took the opportunity Tuesday morning to start coverage on the B2B auction company with typical praise: two buys and a market outperform. It was the first day after the end of the company's 25-day quiet period, after which underwriters and companies can say what they want. The analysts, however, barely had time to clink their glasses together before FreeMarkets announced in a 1:30 p.m. EST press release that General Motors (GM:NYSE) was going to cancel an important contract. The news sent FreeMarkets into free fall, dropping the stock about 20% to an intraday low of 275 just one day after it hit an all-time high of370. The stock closed at 278 1/2, down 61 15/16, or about 18%."

Underwriter recommendations are becoming more and more transparent with regards to being a joke. Yet somehow they still manage to drive stock prices.

posted 12-13-1999 10:58 AM         

---

Art, in my mind, when I use the term efficiency, I think of 'time efficiency', not 'pricing efficiency' which I think you are referring to. They are two totally seperate but important ideas, I am just applying the first to the argument. Sometimes, the most time-efficient buying process might just be buying something immediately regardless of price.

Anyway, I've changed my attitude somewhat on the business plan, because I finally visited the site. It turns out they are basically an requestforproposal.com - each seller competes for the contract (starting those entrenched histories i spoke of earlier) of the buyer, who just needs to sit there as the price drops. I didn't realize, as trentr and the website pointed out, that the auctions happen this way. I now definitely think this can succeed. It really helps everyone - sellers have an automatic lead-generating machine, and prices will naturally drop for the buyers, who will get what they want assuming sellers want their business. Amazing what you will find when you do a little research.

posted 12-10-1999 02:14 PM         

---

> Is this process going to be a dutch auction?
I don't know what specific plans they have, but I don't see any reason why they wouldn't offer a variety of auction types, depending on which would work best in each transaction.

> In terms of being an efficient process, I can see how this model will only serve to increase the amount of time necessary for a business to devote the process.
I disagree. A single marketplace where pricing is transparent, negotiation is unnecessary, and buyer/seller search costs are zero is much more efficient than the old-school way of doing business. Granted, those who have elaborate supply chains in place will benefit less than upstarts, but I think even the dinosaurs will use it to complement their existing systems.

> ...only for businesses who's dominant buying motive is price.
That's true. Online auctions work best for commodities (not commodities as in pork bellies, but commodities as in any product that is identical to and interchangeable with another one with the same description).

All times are EST (US)