Re criteria for Project Hunt--One aim I had in proposing INFS, was to bring the focus back to companies that are not just stories. Do we want to limit PH reports just to Gorilla candidates? I think not, even though a significant number of thread participants are not interested in royalty, and even though W&W is very much a pongid-oriented. Do we want to limit the reports to "telecosm" participants? I think that is implied in your first question, and I disagree. By narrowing the focus too much we will tend to increase risk, because our resulting investments will be focused in a single sector of the economy.
Most of us have developed variations of the approach in TFM, and we place varying importance on issues brought up in the book. (I tend to value management quality and existing profits more highly than most around here, for instance.) All of us, I am sure, also try to consider issues not in the book at all.
Occasionally we also see reference to Lynch's criteria. The ideas he set forth in "One Up", which I just reread, are still valid, and offer a nice complement to Moore's topics. INFS was proposed as a company with royalty credentials, which would also be interesting to Lynch proponents. The discussion on the company took fewer than 20 posts, by the end of which anyone interested had a good feel for the company. I think this is exactly the way the thread should work.
Inviting a broader selection of companies for reports will result in reports that are uninteresting to some participants. But it will also result in the chance for each of us to see a broader selection of companies that we might be interested in--and that all have some claim to Gorilla or King status.
All imho, of course.
Best,
John
PS--But, does that mean I'll have to read about biotechs? Arghh!! <g> |
