So, your interpretation of the book is objective, and I suppose that makes mine..........subjective? Why can't you start out with the assumption that we are each equally likely to be objective?
objective:
1. having to do with a known or perceived object as distinguished from something existing only in the mind of the subject
3. determined by and emphasizing the features and characteristics of the object........rather than the thoughts, feelings.......
4. without bias or prejudice; detached, impersonal
I don't think either of us has demonstrated an ability to be detached on this subject; we both have made highly personal remarks about it; both of us have a lot riding on the outcome of whether our investing principles work out. Your entire investing strategy is based on the book. I considered doing so, for over a year, and finally (partially) rejected it.
In recent posts on this thread, I made a number of specific points about the recent "features and characteristics" of the "object" (=Gorilla stocks and companies). IMO (that's opinion, I recognize my bias), those "features and characteristics", those actual hard facts that have happened, and have happened in a pattern with the whole group, do not correspond with what the book says should happen.
If someone had asked you, back when these stocks were peaking last year, "what is the chance your Gorillas (the stocks, and in many cases the expected 12M forward earnings) could be down 90% next year", you would have replied, "that can only happen if they are facing a substitution threat, and I don't see that happening, so I will continue to hold". If you want, I can quote the exact passages where the book tells you to do that; it is one of the basic principles of Gorilla Gaming. The book says (and they say it over and over), that the only reason to sell a Gorilla, is a substitution threat. That word, "only", is repeated and emphasized and supported by examples, throughout the book. So, the book has taught you not to be worried when a stock you hold hits a P/S of 20; not to be worried if a stock hits a PE of 200; not to be worried about any macro events at all. Don't even pay attention to any of that. You know the "only" thing you need to worry about. You know (and ignore contrary "features and characteristics of the object") that the market consistently undervalues Gorillas, consistently underestimates the future earnings streams of Gorillas, so there is no need to worry. Again, I can quote exactly where that is said, in exactly those words, in tfm.
How can you be so sure of yourself, after all that has happened, all the contrary evidence? I can understand why the book was so popular in 1999, but not now. Even the author is now having doubts about what he wrote during the Bubble. |
