I don't believe relative valuation schemes are the key to successful Gorilla gaming.
I agree. In fact, in the tutorial I point out that identification of the company is the top priority. All valuation can hope to do is add a little bit. Whether it is worthwhile is very dependent upon the individual. Time constraints, psychological factors, and interest levels are all relevant. If somebody doesn't believe them useful, then I have no motivation to convince them otherwise. If somebody wants to use the tools, I've tried to make the available.
There have been a lot of schemes put forward to try to time entries into Gorillas
I don't think of valuation as timing. It is simply a tool for choosing between companies (Gorillas, in this case) given limitations of available money to invest.
Shall we put your theory to the test?
I have been for years. But sure, if we can agree on a meaningful test, I'm willing to "give it up" for the thread. My question to you is, given your lack of real interest and the general lack of interest, will this dilute the thread?
Pick a couple candidates from the GKI which you feel are superior due to valuation, and I'll pick a couple that are in similar stages of the talc.
I'll offer a counter suggestion. Let's decide up front which companies fit where in the TALC. As in, can we come up with 2 or 3 groups? I'll update my numbers over the weekend, and then I will rank those companies I follow in terms of their apparent valuation. [Of the companies in the GKI index, I do not follow MSFT, ORCL, or BRCD.]
Then we'll track them and see if your approach had merit.
Over what time period will we track?
Any other ideas on the experiment?
- Pirah |
