<<I'd expect to be ripped apart if I abused my subscribers' trust.>>
Hi Pat,
I personally agreed with your analysis of both AVNX and LUMM and have invested in neither at this time. That said, it was not your analysis that I found troublesome but the manner with which you chose got it across. I know that you are able convince people of the accuracy and significance of your information without impugning them. I think that is a trait to hold onto.
I've subscribed to three investment letters at various times -- Michael Murphy, John Dessaurer and George Gilder. My favorite by far has been George Gilder. I really look forward to getting it in spite of the price. It's his grasp of technology and outlook that intrigues me. The companies that are representative of his ascendant technologies become starting points for my own analysis. Clearly he points to companies that may be years away from profitability, if ever, or at absurd valuations, both high and low. I do want to know, however, what he "thinks" is good.
If anything bothers me about his report it is the momentum plays that follow them. I do NOT blame Gilder for that, however, but see it reflective of the whole technology fad mentality that has become an epidemic. His visions are well thought out and well presented. If many choose to act on it en mass they will have to answer for their success or failure. (Although I don't want to be dragged in because a "bubble" collapses taking the good with the bad.) Ascendant technologies by their nature are future events, and as you and I well know DSL was an ascendant technology in '96 and is only now really coming into its own. I think we imagined it would be sooner.
What it all comes down to is that I don't expect people who are acting in good faith to be ripped apart. It ruins the quality of life and the willingness of others to share. It would take a lot to convince me that intentional deception is at play. Short of that, I am the one who is subscribing, I am the one who is investing. I can discontinue his report if I find his analysis faulty. Your presentation of facts as you see them may help in that decision and I very much appreciated your valuable insights. Much of your analysis, however, does not really explore the indepth ramifications of a technology the way a Gilder or a Kurweil does.
In may estimate, your analysis is certainly worthy of pay. If you should choose to create a newsletter, and if I subscribed I would still object if a Steve or a whoever "ripped you apart" without convincing me of deliberate deception on your part.
The fact that you may be wrong I know to be inherently true -- not because you charge but because you are human.
Still looking forward to your posts,
Michael |
