"I give up,'' a local financial analyst said last week. "Just buy anything with a dot com or dot net in its name and it can't have any profits or even revenue.'' It is getting weird out in cyberland. He was outlining the marks of stocks whose values have gone through the roof in a frenzy of buying and selling. His frustration was echoed by other analysts around the world as technology related stocks, in particular those having anything to do with the Internet, confounded the usual benchmark measures they use when deciding whether to buy or ignore a company. Many are sitting back holding on to the tried and true values. But their discipline must be sorely tempted by the 50, 60, 70, 200 percent jumps in Internet related stocks as investors bought and sold at an extraordinary rate.

In 1997 the average Internet stock gained 225 percent according to Goldman, Sachs & Co. Online auctioneer eBay Inc. went public in September at $18 a share and went to $240 at year end. On, Friday Broadcast.com stock jumped from $96.50 to $228.50. There were no announcements from the company prior to the price rise. The rise confounded the Nasdaq Stock Market, which asked the Dallas-based Internet broadcaster to issue a public statement specifying any corporate developments that might explain the unusual trading activity.

My bet is that there weren't any corporate developments, and for an Internet-related stock these days that's not unusual trading activity.

The Internet itself has made this kind of hysterical activity possible.

Investors swap supposed market information via E-mail and chat rooms. Then in an instant they pop open their Internet trader screen and put in a buy or sell order for $8 to $10, cheaper than they have been able to do before, and the stock takes off. The cheap trading price allows investors to swap stock back and forth without worrying the cost of trading will cut into gains. Short term trading is in for the ordinary investor, and the long standing advice of holding on for long term gains is out.

How ridiculous can you get? The Wall Street Journal reported that computer consultant Charles Molinary made 600 trades on a $150,000 portfolio last year, getting a 50 percent gain after commissions. The man bought and sold Yahoo! 50 times. Now that's what is called day trading in the business. A professional analyst would have been accused of churning -- excessive trading on a client account to make money from the brokerage fees generated -- if he did the same thing.

It is a fad, and I have been tempted more than once to jump in. People at work are getting used to my howls of agony, greed and envy as I watch new stocks soar to ridiculous heights within hours on the Bloomberg screens. What holds me back? Conservatism. Read fear.

The boom and subsequent shakeout in electric lighting shares in London in the 1880s are a good example of what can go wrong. Plus I would have to give up my job and watch the stocks all the time. I wouldn't be able to sleep at night.

Where are these people finding time to do what professional traders are doing? I'm not saying this kind of trading is wrong, but it sure looks like it is.

People are making money and lots of it. The Internet has allowed them to rebel against the plodding gains, and in some cases losses, made by many mutual funds in the face of a great US bull market. Investment analysts will have to face up to this rebellion. Ordinary investors have felt badly done by the market and by the perception that the investment community has looked after itself. Ordinary investors have felt cheated by the up to five percent chunks taken out of their mutual fund investments, and by the $75 to $150 fees charged when they buy and sell stock.

The Internet, and the research available at reputable online brokerages, has put the power of investing in their hands for cheap and investors are putting their money into the kind of stocks that made this power possible.

But it's a risky way of living. Who is going to lose? The last one holding the stick if and when the stocks crash. It's like a pyramid scheme. Each high flying investor is getting into a relatively unknown stock, betting there's another investor who's out there willing to go even higher in price and make the buy. They may not even know what company or product the stock represents.

They know the stock market symbols and place their money down.

Slice of life: A hilarious bit of question and answer developed in the on going antitrust case against Microsoft Corp. Microsoft lawyer Michael Lacovara was questioning economist Franklin Fisher about the company's promise to make its software forever free.

"(If) Henry Ford had a monopoly, we'd all be driving black cars,'' Mr. Fisher said. "That's not what competition is about. That's not what helping consumers is about.'' "Now you seem agitated, sir,'' Mr. Lacovara said.

"I am agitated. I feel very strongly about this,'' Mr. Fisher retorted.

"We're going to live in a Microsoft world. It might be a nice world, but it's not a competitive world.'' The Computer Society of Bermuda had ten applications for its four scholarships last year. James Birch and Michael Branco each received a $3,000 Overseas Information Technology Scholarship, Del-Keesha Hanley the $2,000 Chris Archer Information Technology. Scholarship and Loren Emery the $1,800 SBI Information Technology Scholarship.

Tech Tattle is about issues in technology. Contact Ahmed ElAmin at 295-5881 ext. 248 or 238-3854 or techtattle ygazette.newsmedia.bm.