I am not questioning all of Gilder picks, since
most of his picks could have been selected easily
by investors who never heard of his newsletter,
but had done their homework. For example, if
you follow communications IC companies, it
was easy to pick BRCM before it went public.
Similarly, PMCS and AMCC were recommended by
the likes of Kevin Landis before they made
it on GG's list. A large part of Gilder's list
is noncontroversial and figures prominently
in the holdings of most tech funds.
During the last year, his picks have become bizarre
(some would say success went to GG's head), such
as XLA or Terabeam. Also, GG conveniently drops
companies at the drop of a hat, often months
after declaring they have an ascending technology.
If they are ascending, how come the ascension
lasts just a few months? Personally, I prefer
to listen to Kevin Landis and Roger McNamee,
since in Landis case he manages some actual
money, and when he makes mistakes the mistake is
in plain sight, as he publishes his complete list
of holdings with a 2 months delay.
I would not actually blame Gilder for making mistakes,
since all investors (even the very best do). I just
think he is not extremely candid in admitting
his errors. This also leaves unanswered the criteria
used for his most bizarre picks this year. |
