wie lange reicht das geld noch ? - 500 Beiträge pro Seite

[berniek]

Hab diesen wirklich nachdenklich machenden Artikel beim surfen gefunden
und meine einiges stimmt da schon-oder?
dieser beitrag stellt nicht meine meinung da oder erhebt anspruch auf wahrhaftigkeit sondern soll nur
zur diskussion anregen.


Wie lange reicht das Geld noch? Interessanter LINK

http://www.redmailorder.com/boerse/mag501.htm Analyse | Burning Up (Barron`s) VÖ: 19.03.2000 Warning: Internet companies are running out of cash... fast! von Jack Willoughby (Barron`s Magazine) Reaktion des Marktes auf diesen Artikel When will the Internet Bubble burst? For scores of `Net upstarts, that unpleasant popping sound is likely to be heard before the end of this year. Starved for cash, many of these companies will try to raise fresh funds by issuing more stock or bonds. But a lot of them won`t succeed. As a result, they will be forced to sell out to stronger rivals or go out of business altogether. Already, many cash-strapped Internet firms are scrambling to find financing. An exclusive study conducted for Barron`s by the Internet stock evaluation firm Pegasus Research International indicates that at least 51 `Net firms will burn through their cash within the next 12 months. This amounts to a quarter of the 207 companies included in our study. Among the outfits likely to run out of funds soon are CDNow, Secure Computing, drkoop.com, Medscape, Infonautics, Intraware and Peapod. To assess the Internet sector`s financial position, Pegasus assumed that the firms in the study would continue booking revenues and expenses at the same rate they did in last year`s fourth quarter. While this method cannot predict the future precisely, it helps answer a question that has been nagging many stock-market analysts: When will the crowded Internet industry begin to be winnowed? The ramifications are far-reaching. To begin with, America`s 371 publicly traded Internet companies have grown to the point that they are collectively valued at $1.3 trillion, which amounts to about 8% of the entire U.S. stock market. Any financial problems at these Internet firms would affect the myriad companies that supply them with equipment, including such giants as Cisco Systems and Intel. Another consideration is that a collapse in highflying Internet stocks could have a depressing effect on the overall market and on consumer confidence, too. This, in turn, could make Americans feel less wealthy and cause them to spend less money on everything from cars to clothing to houses. It`s no secret that most Internet companies continue to be money-burners. Of the companies in the Pegasus survey, 74% had negative cash flows. For many, there seems to be little realistic hope of profits in the near term. And it`s not just the small fry who are running out of cash. Perhaps one of the best-known companies on our list, Amazon.com, showed up with only 10 months` worth of cash left in the till. Pegasus was working with the latest public financial data, from December 31, so the table doesn`t reflect the fact that Amazon early this year managed to raise $690 million by issuing convertible bonds. But that money will last the firm only 21 months. Moreover, raising fresh funds will be more difficult if Amazon`s operating losses continue to mount and its stock price continues to flag. "What`s critical is the stock price," says Scott Sipprelle, co-founder of Midtown Research in New York. "It`s only when the stock price comes unglued that the burn rate means anything." Several signs suggest that the era of "unglued" stock prices is fast approaching. Amazon.com, for example, is trading at about 65, down from its all-time high of $113. Then there`s Internet Capital Group, trading at a recent 117, down from a high of 212. Many other net fledglings are in far worse shape. ELoan`s shares have plummeted to about 10, from a high of 74. The broad picture isn`t much better. The Dow Jones Internet Commerce Index had fallen 25% from the all-time high achieved last April. Little wonder that so many `Net firms are following Amazon`s lead and looking for new funding. "The hunt for cash will become more desperate as the reserves deplete," says Greg Kyle, founder of New York-based Pegasus Research International. Take, for instance, the firm at the top of our list, Pilot Network Services. It was just about at the bottom of its cash hoard when it managed to get a $15 million investment from Primus Telecommunications. To obtain the funds, Pilot had to give Primus a 6% ownership stake. At the current burn rate, the cash infusion should last Pilot about 10 months. VerticalNet, which helps businesses transact on the Internet, had to turn to Microsoft to replenish its dwindling cash supply. In exchange for a $100 million investment, Microsoft is getting a 2% stake in VerticalNet and requiring the Internet upstart to use Microsoft`s technology. Medscape, No. 9 on our list, apparently solved its cash problems by agreeing a few weeks ago to be bought by MedicalLogic Inc. for $733 million in stock Not all `Net firms have been so lucky. Peapod, the fourth company on our list, unveiled crushing news last week. Peapod Chairman Bill Malloy intends to step down for health reasons from the online vendor of groceries. As a result, investors who had agreed to pony up $120 million in financing are backing out of the deal. Peapod has hired Wasserstein Perrella to seek out new investors, but with only $3 million of cash on hand, Peapod`s coffers could be empty within a month. That`s even sooner than indicated by the financial data that Pegasus used to create its burnout rankings. Another `Net company in disarray is the online music retailer CDNow, No. 2 on our list. CDNow executives thought their problems were solved when they agreed to a takeover offer of more than $300 million from Columbia House, the mail-order record seller that`s jointly owned by Time Warner and Sony. One problem: It turned out Columbia House did not itself generate enough cash to make the merger work. Nancy Peretsman, a managing director at the investment bank Allen & Co., has been hired by CDNow to assess strategic options. Her job may not be easy. CDNow has enough cash to last less than one month, and its shares are trading at 6 3/4, down 80% from their all-time high. Burning-Up Time Table (Here`s when the 51 Net companies below are likely to run out of cash, according to year-end 1999 data. Some can raise more funds through stock and bond offerings. Others will be forced to merge or go out of business. It`s Darwinian capitalism at work.) März 2000 Pilot Network Services, CDNow April 2000 Secure Computing Mai 2000 Peapod, VerticalNet, MarketWatch.com Juni 2000 Drkoop.com, Infonautics, Medscape, Intelligent Life, Digital Island, Splitrock Services, VitaminShoppe.com Juli 2000 Intraware, Interliant, MyPoints.com, Egghead.com, MotherNature.com, ImageX.com, BigStar Entertainment, Mail.com August 2000 Cybercash, Applied Theory, WorldTalk Corp, Primix Solutions, Newsedge September 2000 FTD.com, ShopNow.com, Beyond.com, Healtheon Oktober 2000 E Loan, Interactive Pictures, Ask Jeeves, LoisLaw.com, PlanetRx.com November 2000 LifeMinders.com, SmarterKids.com, Drugstore.com, Ashford.com, NorthPoint Communications Dezember 2000 EarthWeb, NetObjects, Tickets.com Januar 2001 Salon.com, Amazon.com, PurchasePro.com Februar 2001 Cobalt Group, Multex.com, eToys, Kana Communications, E-Stamp As noted above, a depressed share price limits a company`s ability to raise fresh funds. Let`s face it, with lots of investors looking at losses on a stock investment, selling more shares into the market can be difficult, at best. A good example is eToys, a toy retailer that came public at $20 and surged to well over $80 amid great public enthusiasm. The concept was easy to understand and promised great riches. But the competition, in the form of Toys R Us, did not roll over and play dead. Toys R Us launched its own Website, and ardor cooled for eToys. Today shares of eToys repose at 11 3/4. All those people who bought in at prices ranging from $20 to $80 are none too eager to buy more shares, even at $12. EToys has enough cash on hand to last only 11 more months, so stay tuned. Even a celebrity like Dr. Everett Koop is not immune. His Website, drkoop.com, came public at $9 a share, surged to over $40, and has since fallen back to $9. Drkoop.com ranks seventh on our list, with three months` cash left. Another easy-to-understand e-play that has disappointed investors is FTD.com, the flower retailer. Its shares have wilted to a recent 3 5/8, from an all-time high of 12 1/2. FTD.com has about six months` of cash remaining. "That`s the problem with these IPO run-ups. They introduce so much hype and emotion, when what`s really needed is stability," says William Hambrecht, founder of Hambrecht & Quist, owner of W.R. Hambrecht, a pioneer in offering IPOs to investors via the Internet. "A volatile price on a new stock kills your ability to finance in the future. It`s very destructive." `Net companies are also finding it more difficult to raise funds by issuing convertible bonds. One reason: investors in these instruments are attracted to the possibility that the issuer`s stock price will rise, enabling bondholders to reap a nice profit when they convert their bonds into stock at some future date. "Slowly the door`s beginning to shut on the pure Internet plays in the convertible market," says Ravi Suria, chief of convertibles research at Lehman Brothers in New York. Indeed, E*Trade, Amazon.com and Ameritrade have had to offer unusually generous interest rates and conversion terms to sell their latest offerings of convertibles. With so many Internet stocks well off their highs, the promise of converting bonds into stocks at a huge profit seems more remote, making such deals a lot less alluring. Egghead.com, with an estimated 4.4 months` worth of cash on hand, recently solved its hunt for capital, but its success may prove pyrrhic. Although a Bahamian outfit called Acqua Wellington agreed to invest $100 million in Egghead.com, Acqua plans to make its investment over a nine-month period, buying up stock at an unstated discount to the current market. "It`s a curious situation, to be sure," says Pegasus` Kyle. And it`s yet another sign that cash is getting more difficult for `Net firms to come by. Investors` distaste for `Net stocks is especially prevalent when the business plans of the companies in question depend solely on selling goods to consumers. "The business models are coming under intense scrutiny for companies in the business-to-consumer sector, because both investors and venture capitalists are skeptical about the potential for profitability," says Jon A. Flint, founder of Boston-based Polaris Venture Partners, an initial backer of the successful Internet company Akamai Technologies. Could the depression felt in consumer-oriented `Net companies spread to the business-to-business sector? Right now the sector is so beloved that it hardly seems possible. For instance, a purchasing site for businesses, PurchasePro, has a mere 10.2 months of cash remaining, yet the stock market totally sloughs it off. Recently, PurchasePro shares touched a spectacular 175, up 2,000% from the firm`s $8 offering price (adjusted for a split) last September. Still, don`t be surprised if at some point such popular business-to-business stocks go the way of the consumer offerings such as eToys, FTD.com, or drkoop.com. "Many of these B2B companies have strategies that depend upon continuous access to capital," says Kyle. "If any of these firms were not able to raise their cash, the implosion would certainly affect stockholder confidence. We know that B2B stocks have to eventually come down, the question is when: five months or five years from now?" Don`t bet on the latter. Part of the problem is that the `Net companies` founders and early backers are eager to sell their shares while they still can. So far this year, 38 publicly traded Internet companies have tapped the markets for $16 billion in capital through secondary offerings. This represents a fivefold increase in the number of secondary offerings compared with the same period last year. Another key difference is that this year a far larger number of second-round deals involved insiders unloading their shares on the public. This hurts the companies in question because the cash raised by selling shareholders goes right into the pockets of those shareholders, and not into the companies` coffers. Sure, venture capitalists and other early-stage investors are in the business of selling out at a profit eventually, but large sales of insider stock while a company is still reporting losses can choke off that company`s access to fresh capital, thereby diminishing the chances for survival. In the investment world, this is akin to men on a sinking ocean liner pushing women and children aside to commandeer the lifeboats. "The IPO market used to be available only to seasoned companies where the insiders` exit strategy didn`t matter," says Hambrecht. "When you take a company public that still needs capital to continue as a going concern, you are taking a huge risk. Insider selling only makes it harder to raise money." Venture capitalists, quite rightly, become incensed when their integrity gets impugned. After all, they were behind more than half of last year`s 501 initial public offerings. For them, selling down positions to cover startup costs happens to be a business strategy. The conflict of interest between venture capitalists and the public is well illustrated by the case of MyPoints.com, an Internet direct-marketing firm. With four months` cash left, MyPoints filed to raise $185 million by selling as many as four million shares to the public. At first blush, the offering would appear to refill MyPoints.com`s coffers quite nicely. But a closer look reveals that 40% of the shares on offer are being sold by insiders. Thus, money seemingly destined for the company gets diverted to insiders. Another notable insider selloff occurred at the Internet real-estate seller HomeStore.com, which at yearend 1999 had enough cash remaining to last a little over a year. The stock came public at 20 in August, rose to a high of 138, and has since slipped to 50. In January, HomeStore announced a $900 million secondary offering, in which the insiders reaped more than half the gross proceeds. More often than not, venture capitalists sell when retail investors are eager to buy. As noted above, shares of PurchasePro.com recently touched $175. With 10.2 months` cash left, it should be no surprise that PurchasePro recently sold three million shares, one-third of which are owned by insiders. The evidence shows the race for the exits is especially pronounced among Internet companies. So far this year, in two-thirds of the secondary stock offerings by Internet companies, 25% or more of the shares were sold by insiders, according to CommScan. In non-Internet deals, only about one-quarter of the deals involved insider selling of 25% or more. The Internet investing game has been kept alive in large part by a massive flow of money out of Old Economy stocks and into New Economy stocks. Last week`s steep slide in the Nasdaq and the sharp recovery of the Dow Jones Industrial Average may mark a reversal of this trend. As illustrated last week, once psychology changes, cash-poor Internet issues tend to fall farthest, fastest. Burning-Up Rangliste
(alle 207 Unternehmen der Studie) (Nr.1 wird am schnellsten `ausgebrannt` sein) 1.pilot Network Services 2 CDNow 3 Secure Computing 4 Peapod 5 VerticalNet 6 MarketWatch.com 7 Drkoop.com 8 Infonautics 9 Medscape 10 Intelligent Life 11 Digital Island 12 Splitrock Services 13 VitaminShoppe.com 14 Intraware 15 Interliant 16 MyPoints.com 17 Egghead.com 18 MotherNature.com 19 ImageX.com 20 BigStar Entertainment 21 Mail.com 22 Cybercash 23 Applied Theory 24 WorldTalk Corp 25 Primix Solutions 26 Newsedge 27 FTD.com 28 ShopNow.com 29 Beyond.com 30 Healtheon 31 E Loan 32 Interactive Pictures 33 Ask Jeeves 34 LoisLaw.com 35 PlanetRx.com 36 LifeMinders.com 37 SmarterKids.com 38 Drugstore.com 39 Ashford.com 40 NorthPoint Communications 41 EarthWeb 42 NetObjects 43 Tickets.com 44 Salon.com 45 Amazon.com 46 PurchasePro.com 47 Cobalt Group 48 Multex.com 49 eToys 50 Kana Communications 51 E-Stamp 52 Streamline.com 53 uBid 54 TheGlobe.com 55 Quokka Sports 56 Prodigy 57 eCollege.com 58 Online Resources 59 AutoWeb.com 60 Rhythms NetConnections 61 LookSmart 62 BarnesAndNoble.com 63 Juno Online Svs 64 NetRadio 65 Cylink 66 iVillage 67 Critical Path 68 Concentric Networks 69 HomeStore.com 70 eGain Comms 71 Fogdog 72 Talk City 73 ZipLink 74 TicketMaster-CitySearch 75 SilverStream Software 76 Egreetings.com 77 TriZetto Group 78 Audible 79 Ventro 80 Garden.com 81 VocalTec 82 Worldgate Comm. 83 NBC Internet 84 Quotesmith.com 85 Exactis.com 86 Retek 87 NetZero 88 MessageMedia 89 Log On America 90 iGo 91 JFax.com 92 SportsLine 93 V-ONE 94 VoxWare 95 USinterNetworking 96 DSL.net 97 Persistence Software 98 HealthCentral.com 99 Student Advantage 100 CNET 101 Lionbridge Technologies 102 Launch Media 103 Netcentives 104 OnDisplay 105 WatchGuard Tech 106 Yesmail.com 107 InsWeb 108 El Sitio 109 Ramp Networks 110 TheStreet.com 111 Viador 112 HealthExtras 113 Digital River 114 MedicaLogic 115 NextCard 116 Tumbleweed Comms 117 Akamai Technologies 118 StarMedia Networks 119 OneSource 120 iXL Enterprises 121 GRIC Communications 122 Commerce One 123 Stamps.com 124 EDGAR Online 125 Onemain.com 126 OpenMarket 127 Calico Commerce 128 Mcafee 129 NetSpeak 130 InterNAP 131 Silknet Software 132 HearMe.com 133 NetPerceptions 134 ZapMe! 135 E.piphany 136 Mortgage.com 137 Interwoven 138 GoTo.com 139 Priceline.com 140 Be Free 141 China.com 142 FreeShop.com 143 Ariba 144 Web Street 145 Autobytel.com 146 Bluestone Software 147 ITXC 148 CommTouch Software 149 Knot 150 InterTrust 151 Primus Knowledge 152 Mediaplex 153 Breakaway Solutions 154 About.com 155 Tut Systems 156 iBasis 157 S1 Corporation 158 E*Trade 159 Preview Travel 160 CyberSource 161 Broadbase Software 162 GetThere.com 163 Vitria Technology 164 AltiGen 165 Webvan 166 Quintus 167 Liquid Audio 168 Hoover`s 169 Digital Impact 170 Women.com 171 Earthlink 172 Telemate.Net 173 Active Software 174 Media Metrix 175 Keynote Systems 176 HotJobs.com 177 @plan 178 U.S. Interactive 179 PcOrder.com 180 Data Return 181 Exodus Communications 182 BackWeb Technologies 183 Internet.com 184 USWeb/CKS 185 MP3.com 186 Inktomi 187 Ameritrade 188 Jupiter Communications 189 eBenX 190 Accrue Software 191 Art Tech Group 192 Wit Capital 193 Software.com 194 Spyglass 195 Phone.com 196 NetRatings 197 Scient 198 Agile Software 199 Pivotal 200 Marimba 201 Andover.Net 202 Vignette 203 DoubleClick 204 PSINet 205 Allaire 206 C-Bridge Internet 207 Radware
antworten!?

[Die_Wahrheit]

Hab das schon gepostet unter Thread: Revolutionäre & Co. (Teil II)

...

[Dr. Max]

Also, nehmen wir mal ETrade (Randnummer 159).

Die Produzieren einen Verlust von 20 cents oder so pro 20 Dollar Aktie.

Das Unternehmen ist der first mover bei den Online Brokern (seit 1993) und hat ein klasse Produkt. Ich nutze es. Dennoch verdient Etrade kein Geld. Also hab ich es auch nicht im Revolutionärsportfolio.

Ein solcher Unternehmen wird nicht kaputtgehen, sondern irgendwann von einem anderen Unternehmen (z.B.) Goldmann Sachs übernommen. Frage nur: zuw welchem Preis:

Bei der jetzigen Marktkapitalisierung von 4 Mrd. $ ist jeder Kunde immer noch 2000 $ wert. Das kann so schnell keiner hereinholen. Die Frage ist also, ob Goldman Sachs den Preis bezahlen will, der (noch) auf den freien Kapitalmärkten bezahlt wird, oder erheblich weniger.

Who knows?

Ich investiere nur in cash-flow positive Internet-Unternehmen (Yahoo, Ebay).

Max

[Hirnhaut]

Ist nichts neues. Dieser Artikel (die berühmte Barron Liste) war mit- verantwortlich für die erste Kurskorrektur vor einigen Wochen bei den High Tech Werten.

[berniek]

peinlich,da surft man erst durchs net und dabei war der bericht hier schon gepostet.naja besser 2x als garnicht.

[Die_Wahrheit]

Du meinst: beser garnicht als 2mal.

Denn solche Barrons-Reports sind wirklich überflüssig..

[Dr. Max]

Warheit -

wieso ist der Report Deiner Meinung nach überflüssig.

Ich finde ihn ganz interessant. Du hast ihn doch auch gepostet.



Max

[Die_Wahrheit]

Dr. Max,
sicherlich ist es übertrieben, wenn ich sage, daß der Report überflüssig ist. Ich glaube nunmal, daß mit solchen Prophezeiungen auch viel Unsinn betrieben wird, um Investoren zu verunsichern. Eins ist klar: einige I-Net-Unternehmen werden untergehen, aber nicht alle. Barron´s bringt solche Reports in schöner Regelmäßigkeit, so daß ich denke, daß da System dahintersteckt. So wurden Exodus Comm. bereits mehrere Male von denen "verbrannt" - bisher ist das Unternehmen aber nicht untergegangen.

Lies mal diesen Bericht vom 18. April 2000 in der Zeitung "Die Welt" durch - unmittelbar nach dem Nasdaq-Crash:

"Die Höchststände sind auf Jahre hinaus nicht wieder zu sehen"

Finanzexperte Marc Faber malt düstere Zukunft für Wachstumswerte an Nasdaq und Neuem Markt ...

DIE WELT: Sie warnen seit langem vor allem
vor der Überbewertung der High-Tech-Aktien. Ist das Ende der Korrektur jetzt in Sicht? Marc Faber: Ich bin da skeptisch.
Die Investoren haben jetzt das erste Mal seit Jahren große Verluste hinnehmen müssen. Und dies ist umso schlimmer,
als viele ihr Engagement in den spekulativen Titeln, die teilweise um 50 bis 70 Prozent gefallen sind, auf Kredit finanziert haben.
In den USA ist das Volumen der Börsenkredite in den vergangenen vier Monaten um 100 Mrd. Dollar angewachsen.
Damit wurden Aktienkäufe im Wert von rund 200 Mrd. Dollar initiiert. Und fast alle von ihnen stehen jetzt unter Wasser.
Das verheißt nichts Gutes.... So gab es 1908 in den USA über 500 Automobilhersteller, 1910 waren es rund 300,
und heute sind gerade einmal drei übrig geblieben. Und auch aus dem High-Tech-Sektor heute werden sich nur ganz wenige
Gesellschaften dauerhaft etablieren.
Von 1000 Unternehmen, die in den letzten zwei Jahren an die Börse gegangen sind, werden maximal zehn bis 20 dauerhaft überleben".

ENDE.

Jetzt frage ich mal:
Wer kann schon sicher sagen, was in 100 Jahren passieren wird. Keiner. Sicherlich sind in der Automobilindustrie nur 3-5 Unternehmen übriggeblieben, aber die anderen sind ja nicht untergegangen, sondern wurden übernommen usw., so daß diese inzwischen "untergegangenen" Unternehmen zwischenzeitlich ein lukratives Investment waren. Jedenfalls kenne ich keinen Crash an den Aktienmärkten, der durch Automobilaktien verursacht wurde.
Hier sollten einfach Emotionen von Anlegern weiter aufgeheizt werden, um die Nasdaq wirklich in einen Bärenmarkt stürzen zu lassen - denn wenn die Nasdaq unter 3000 gefallen wäre, wäre es problematisch geworden.
Ich glaube z.B. daß bestimmte Leute über die Medien versuchen, an den Finanzmärkten die Trends zu setzen. Denn wer die Trends setzt, kann viel Geld verdienen...