I was also a kinder soul in 1999 and 2000
than I am now.
AMD posters are extremely technical and very dedicated. They are techies and remind me of the ham radio craze of the 60's and 70's where everybody was building amplifiers and radios from heath kits, Harmen Karden, etc. All the talk was on what rheostat and tube configuration was best, etc.
Most of these AMD posters haven't got a clue on how to invest. They are emotional and root for the small guy.
I love a good battle and I also admire any firm that can stand up to the big guy. Look at Southwest Bell Telephone and how they have handled ATT - and look at Amerada Hess and how it has handled Exxon.
History will show that small firms can hold out against the big guys for quite a while. Sometimes, but more rarely than ever, the small guy can topple the big guy.
More common is the other scenario. The giant firm buries the small firm in one simple mistake that the small firm makes and it is a deadly game.
Microsoft has found these "turning points" and used them to its advantage. Intel has also been able to keep the technological pressure up for many decades.
Now if I had $100 and I wanted to place a bet at a race track, I would take the longest shot to make the highest return. If I wanted to keep some winnings and play longer, I would take a much smaller risk and bet the crowd favorite.
In many ways stock picking is like that. You can take a flyer on a stock because you feel something is fundamentally going to change your luck, or that the horse will have a great run, or that the track gives an advantage to your horse that day. But it is far more sensible (but with a smaller return) to bet the proven track winner.
I watched warren Buffett speak on Tuesday and I was profoundly impressed with his message, which says he looks for proven management that has a passion for their business an fervently believes in the business and is dominant in an industry for a very long time and is a recognized household brand. He says that kind of company is Coke or Gillett or Sees Candy. He invests in that kind only because, more likely than not, it will be here in 30 years.
Buffett said Berkshire only adds two things to the companies it owns. Berkshire sends them money as they need it and it compliments their management heartedly. At the end of the year he says the companies they own send back over $5 billion. His office only has 14.8 people in it and he is the .8 .
He is in it for the long cycle. Sometimes a company they own takes a while to get it back together again - but he only invests in proven companies with long, solid, brand images.
So this is what the world's greatest investor is telling us.
And this is what Paul Engel on the SI Board and I on the Raging Bull Boards have been saying for years.
Intel faces a greater challenge today than in the past ten years, but it also has the greatest opportunity to finally end the challenge of AMD.
It is an interesting struggle and I am getting a lot of great learning as an investor.
It is not hard to choose sides but it is hard to stay steady once you are rooting for one firm or the other.
* * * *
The post I am replying to is on the Raging Bull Board and reads as follows:
"For a while now, I've been a lot more interested between the human interest study that is the AMD/INTC (and RMBS) message board system on SI and RB. I began to wonder recently to see how all of the hostilities came about. I've spent the last hour or two running through SI:INTC posts (up to about #2000) and haven't gotten there yet, but thought it amusing to find that back then, Paul Engel was a pretty composed, friendly kind of guy... also funny...
Message 135065
Today I find him to be a boor.
Among the early posters that still post often today are you, PE, Mary Cluney, John Fowler, and John Hull. No 'droids yet. That's what I'm looking for.
-Z (who is very, very strange) " |
