Forum Archive Index - February 2000

[Phil Williams <philw@hyperactive.co.nz>]

Snoopy,

I'll register my agreement there...the Goodreturns.co.nz article is rubbish, 
and plagiarised.

Still, it doesn't surprise me to see that article dusted off and wheeled out 
yet again... its only been used about as many times as the shares AQL has on 
issue...

The other article on the two-finger typist market journo's list is, of course, 
the one predicting the immenent fire and brimstone demise of techs and a return 
to value investing.

WRONG. I would hope that the trading public would have a mature enough opinion 
of the infotech sector now to realise that the truth falls between these two 
poles... sadly the distributors of such info are so desperate for content 
they'll put up
anything.
Vote with your mouse and find reputable and informed sources of information, 
not speculation.
A credit here to Ben Dutton for weeding out the crap and finding the juice 
every day on the Sharechat news links... remember this forum has a site too...

On AQL, well, if the situation isn't mud now then I doubt any further 
information will clear the waters.
The only thing that would appear to be certain is that this extremely complex 
chain of asset sales/ownership/management/share swaps is not being done to 
create a viable business, but to create phantom value, confuse the taxman, and 
generally stick
over the unfortunates who'll try and get on "the bus" when it's already broken 
down.
Feb 29, or sooner.

Me? A hypocrite - proud holder of some AQL options, bought extremely cheap. 
Long live Eric.


Phil Williams

Animation/Media Designer
Hyperactive New Media
Wellington, NZ
+64 8019550



"tennyson@caverock.net.nz" wrote:

> >
> > http://www.goodreturns.co.nz/features.phtml?datex=949347484
> >
> I've read this article Mark.
>
> My summary:
> "Since the tech companies don't have a track record we can't value
> them on earnings.  So because internet stocks are obviously part of
> the future we should buy in anticipation of huge gains in market
> share."
>
> At one stage 'Amazon.com' was priced on market at a higher valuation
> than all the existing bricks and morter US book market retailers.
> Many of these IT stocks have already got  wildly optimistic
> future scenarios built into the share price.  Do these Internet
> retailers really think that all the existing retailers are just going
> to roll over and all the competition go away?
>
> There is no serious discussion  on how we should discern a 'good'
> internet stock from a bad one.  I'd give the article   1/10.
>
> At best this article is one mans opinion.   I can't see any evidence
> that Taylor Young has done any homework on this topic.   And as for
> being a New Zealand article, it is quite clear, when they refer to
> autumn at the end of 1999 it has been cut and pasted from an American
> site. SNOOPY
>
> -----------------------------------------------
> Sent by David Tennyson on Pegasus Mail v2.55
>   I have Microsoft Word 97 to read attachments
> Reply to  tennyson@caverock.net.nz
> -----------------------------------------------
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
> To remove yourself from this list, please us the form at
> http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.html.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/          New Zealand's home for market investors
To remove yourself from this list, please us the form at
http://www.sharechat.co.nz/forum.html.