OT Critical vs. Negative
I have been accused of being both, but I will only admit to one. I am not negative!
1. I only invest in Silicon Valley based (or associated) technology stocks;
2. Most of my investments are in semis and semi-equips;
3. I am over 55% long in the funds targeted for equity investment. The other 45% is in cash waiting to be invested. I am not now, nor have I ever been short;
4. Since I started the "Blood" thread in 1996 my investment and reward has grown considerably. At the top, last year, my portfolio cost was 15 times my cost at the beginning of '96 and my portfolio value was 36 times the value at the begining of '96. I am down approximately 20% from the top, ~1/2 of that reduction is in the decreased value of my CSCO holdings. 83% of this reduced value is now cash, and much of it has been removed from equity and placed in 5 year CDs;
5. I have transitioned from software engineer to investor because I believe in the future of technology, the future of Silicon Valley, and my ability to profit handsomely from these.
I am critical!
1. I will be 58 years old this week and I have been following the market for 46 years;
2. I have always excelled intellectually and I have always been a voracious and critical reader;
3. I have been reading about investing almost as long as I have followed the market;
4. I have been an early and enthusiastic adapter of internet technology because I have worked in the technology arena since 1968. Moreover, the independence of the individual and the more level investment playing field fostered by the internet suit my personality and temperament;
5. Part of the wisdom I have gained through age is the understanding of my limitations and my emotional foibles. I have endeavored to follow an investment strategy that reflects both. The success I achieved marching to my own drummer has strengthened my belief in my ability to continue this success;
6. I have a healthy respect for and understanding of the risks in the stock market. I know that technology investing is both more risky and more rewarding than diversified investing; In the 80s, before the internet, I regularly received a booklet from Merrill Lynch which listed all their opinions on all the stocks they researched. One category I was interested in was what they called "Emerging Growth." One day, I came across a booklet that was 5 years old. None of the stocks listed in the 5 year old "Emerging Growth" category were still in business! This told me much about risk and the reliability of "research."
7. I have described the behavior of the securities industry during the dot com debacle as racketeering. Day after day, I would see new BUY ratings issued for companies that typically had $25M sales, $20M losses, and a market cap of $2B. The conflict of interest and disregard for any fiduciary responsibiliy were obvious!
8. In the "Blood" thread in '96, I recomended 8 semi-equips. Sam Citron asked for only one and I gave him an unequivocal AMAT. AMAT is still my single favorite technology stock, but I don't believe it should be bought at any time and at any price. This is the crux of my problem here at the AMAT thread. More telling to me than any criticism of my style, is the idea that I am more critical of or only critical of BULLS. I am an equal opportunity critic. If anything, the events of this past year have caused me to be even more critical. I have no tolerance for what led so many astray last. Last year, a principle in the company I worked for gained $15M before long term capital gains tax when the company was purchased by CMOS. He took some(?) of this money to Merrill Lynch and Merrill Lynch decided to income average him into the market over a 6 MONTH PERIOD STARTING LAST SUMMER! One of their recommendations was JDSU at ~$120. I had a chance to tell him what I thought of 6 months and JDSU. I was not close to him and we had our differences, but I hope I saved him some money. Maybe more than most of us will ever have. In any case, it was one more example of the lack of competence or integrity of both that pervades the investment arena;
9. Finally, I have posted on SI since the end of '95 with a purpose. I want to make money and I want to help others do the same. I believe I have accomplished both in no small measure. I don't want to hurt any individual. Just the opposite, I want to help. I am old enough and wise enough to know that I am not usually very tactful or diplomatic. This is not restricted to SI. You all would be much happier if you could get my ideas distilled through my wife. Unfortunately, it won't happen. I have gone to some lengths to accomodate the thread and individuals. I have completely curtailed my participation in any political discussion. I have ignored Mike to keep from upsetting him with my responses to his posts, but we have engaged in friendly and productive exchanges of private messages. I have just ignored John Connolly with the same purpose. |
