Uncle Frank,
I received your private message and responded to it before discovering this post. First, let me say that I regret having to use a public forum to try to clarify our different interpretations of what I intended or did in my post. Second, I believe that you are an excellent Threadmaster. Not only that, I believe that my view is widely shared by the G&K thread and the SI community. You greatly deserved the honor that you recently received here. Third, I believe this community to be a valuable one. I have learned much from you all, and I have tried to give something back. Perhaps, I have failed, but what I hope is, as Cool Hand Luke put it, that "we have a failure to communicate." And, that this too will pass.
So, it is with chagrin and foreboding that I respond to your post. Nothing good seems to come from airing the dirty linen in public. Particularly, when I am confused by both your private message and public post.
After reading Michael Mauboussin's paper on network effects, Mike Buckley proposed that the thread try to apply his reasoning to some stocks. Mike, Aerokat, Judith Williams, and I exchanged a series of posts and private messages. I said that I was willing to try the first Network Effect's post although I had some reservations about the reception that a post on Yahoo! might receive, given that the G&K's focus is quite different. The idea that we had was to try to extend the hunt for companies with a sustainable competitive advantage from network effects. My task was not to write a Project Gorilla Hunt Report but a Project Network Hunt Report.
Please forgive me, Frank, but I believe that I need to quote the two sentences that you wrote to me in your e-mail, and my reply to you.
>>I am very displeased with the high pressure sales tactics that you've employed in your Yahoo presentation and subsequent buy recommendation. G&K style is to present factual data and an objective interpretation of that data, and then to allow each reader to come to their own conclusion about the suitability of that investment for their personal portfolio.<<
My response to you was:
>>Dear Frank,
Are you being serious here? I have nothing to sell, much less to sell in a way that I would characterize as "high pressure." I made no recommendation to anyone to "Buy." In fact, I urged anyone who feels afraid, uncertain, or doubtful to be sure not to buy Y!. Also, in the sentences you quote, I said that Y! certainly doesn't need me to argue the case for investing in it. Considering the original post on Y!, I am not aware of other posts that presented more data than I did. This certainly permitted others to weigh the evidence for and against a personal investment decision, one that I have no desire to influence. In my disclaimer I made it clear that my primary interest was educational. I stated that Y! was my seventh favorite stock, which I consider to be a modest endorsement. I said, "I am not a financial professional and all of the above is just my opinion."
I understand that you favor a conservative approach to investment and that you would look unfavorably on any approach that strikes you as "high pressure sales tactics." So would I. That is why your note puzzles and disturbs me. Can you clarify what you have in mind when you characterize my work in this way?
Perhaps, it reflects a dislike of my rhetorical style or of my discussing a non-GG stock. I do view good writing as making an argument in favor of a point of view. As an academic, I always disliked the "disinterested" style that conceals the author's intentions behind a façade of neutral impartiality. I assume that you might agree with me about directness since you express yourself quite directly in your phrase, "I am very displeased, etc." It is also true that I believe little is gained and much lost by not trying to find stocks that have a sustainable competitive advantage coming from other sources than an open, proprietary architecture, etc. I favor careful stock selection by sound criteria using a ltb&h approach.
My best guess is that you must believe that I crossed-over the impartiality line when I wrote, "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus!" If so, I can understand that perspective; I can even accept your mildly disapproving of it. But, that literary allusion remains to me discernibly different from "high pressure sales tactics." To me, it is dramatic and playful, a way of amusing the reader. My threadmates, as I view them, are sophisticated enough about life and investing to be repelled by anyone's "high pressure sales tactics."
I value you in your role as Threadmaster. You do an excellent job. Perhaps, your experience leads you to believe that some G&K investors might be unduly open to influence by me or what I wrote. If so, I would like to understand your thinking so I can reconsider my own. However, not understanding where you are coming from, I am surprised and disappointed by this rebuke, because I do value your opinion and your regard.
Best Regards,
Don <<
Frank, I have never intended to do anything but to add value to this forum. If I have failed, I regret it. Above all, I do not want this thread to be disrupted by me. I certainly hope that I am not guilty as charged. If I have violated some standard of objectivity and impartiality, I apologize to my threadmates. I will state again that I have no desire to influence your investment decisions. If I do so, it remains your choice and your responsibility. Whether I am or am not using "high pressure sales tactics," I still would like to put this behind us and go forward. The thread is important to us both. I can lurk here if my posts are inappropriate. Please, let this end here.
I hope this helps.
Don |
