In between our bickering, you made some points that merit response.
>> I have candidly and repeatedly said to you and others that I read your thread regularly and find the comments regarding specific companies and stocks to be excellent...
Thanks. That's the primary charter of the thread - evaluating potential Gorillas and Kings. The secondary charter is to provide a watering hole for the small number of ltb&h style investors on SI.
>> I have also been critical of you and others for rejecting the contributions of those who have departed from the mainstream opinion on the thread
It's a busy thread, and has a very specific theme. All we've ever insisted on is that newcomers familiarize themselves with our terminology before they join in the discussions, refrain from hyping stocks, and be polite when criticizing our approach. We've welcomed many posters who disagree with our picks, ltb&h, or the GG.
>> He also alleged that what had got to him was my purported glee at the G&K'ers losing money.You know perfectly well that I did nothing of the sort.
I'll take your word that you didn't mean that, but it the heat of battle, it certainly appeared that way. In fact, that perception has been the only reason I've continued to argue with you, not your criticism of my shortcomings.
>> you (your thread) have a following; I have this perhaps simplistic view that those in such a privileged position have a responsibility to their "followers"
Since you read G&K, you must realize that my role is facilitator, not a guru in any sense. I see my responsibility as trying to maintain a forum where bright people can gather to share ideas in a non-intimidating framework of polite discourse. In return, I get the chance to learn from my threadmates, not lead them. The exception is my ongoing crusade against margin, and short term options, which imo are the real dream killers. The "privileged position" you refer to is non-existent, as my ideas are subject to the same challenge as anyone else's.
>> The "valuation does not matter" mentality that prevailed on your thread should have been tempered a long while ago.
The problem is that no one has been able to advance a metric that would allow us to predict valuation exposure. It's easy to say that G&Ks were overvalued in early 2000, but that's rear view mirror magic. If you have one that works, it would be a welcome contribution, as we could use it right now. But in the absense of one, the approach has been to take a position in a Gorilla, and if the fundamentals continue to hold, add on dips - a dollar averaging approach. And in case you weren't tracking the thread back then, Mike Buckley, Lindy Bill, and I all urged caution at the beginning of 2000, both on the thread and at the G&K reunion in San Diego.
>> "The Class of 2000" as your refer to those who espoused gorilla gaming during the first quarter of 2000 have had their heads handed to them - does that bother you at all?
It troubles me greatly.
>> You have personally posted advice that pretty much threw caution to the winds with regard to market valuations.
You might want to reflect on that accusation. It's unnecessarily contentious and untrue.
>> It may be years before those who entered those stocks near their highs get back to break-even.
But the strategy was always presented in terms of long term holding, which was clearly defined as years. The class of 2000 consisted of folks looking for the best risk/reward ratio high tech investments, and imo the GG approach addressed that admirably. Despite the fact that they have declined so much, our Gorillas were the last to fall, are still making improvements in their revenues and earnings, and imo, will be the first in the technology sector to begin regaining their market value. I have not only held my positions in qcom, sebl, ntap, csco intact, but actually added to them, on that premise.
>> Finally, you are the last person who should be talking about anyone else's hypocrisy given your conduct with regard to Poet's situation.
Here's my position, which I felt I clearly stated in past posts. Anyone who writes obscene, abusive, or threatening posts or PMs should have their SI membership terminated permanently the very first time it happens. The point of disagreement is whether decisions on specific incidents should be reached through the court of public opinion or by SI's administrators. Your characterization of my personal preference for the latter approach as hypocrisy is unfortunate.
uf |
