If John were both intelligent and sincere about wanting to participate this forum, he could easily make his points while maintaining the standard for polite discourse.
With all due respect, it is my opinion that John has been responding (with a good bit of restraint I might add) to the confrontational tone of some of the posters here. For example, one poster asked him to provide a record of his performance and then another berated him for posting history.
I guess you missed John's admission that he has never invested in tech to a significant degree. Like many other value investors, he missed the bear, but he also missed the preceding bull.
I did not. The last decade was a bull market for more than just tech. Presuming that he missed the bull market by not investing in tech is, well, presumptuous. Similarly, one did not need to be invested in tech in order to experience losses during the recent bear market. The only thing JS has "admitted" is that he participated in a bull market by being long in whichever asset class suited his style. However, unlike many of the posters here (myself included) JS went essentially all cash at the appropriate time due to valuation concerns. I want to understand his metric. Are his criteria any less applicable to tech investing or G&K candidates than Mike's or Bruce's? Maybe, but I would like to find out for myself.
Have you noticed that virtually nothing John has said is specific to the Gorilla Game or the vetting of G&K candidates? Since his focus is on macro-economics and general market/valuation issues...
I noticed that market valuation is part of his strategy. Of course, I also noticed that the majority of the discussion around these parts over the past few months has centered on valuation and the determination of entry/exit points for G&K candidates. Implicit is the fact that discussing the macro-economic environment in this context is entirely appropriate. To claim otherwise is equivalent to claiming that the macro-economic environment has no effect on the valuation of stocks.
But imo, his continued presence here will be increasingly disruptive. And since I also believe that he is a smart fellow, perhaps that's been his agenda all along.
With this point I must respectfully disagree. He is certainly nowhere near as caustic as Goldfinger or JHP was before they earned the honor of topping my "Ignore" list. If he becomes increasingly disruptive as you suggest, this group has proven itself adept at handling that situation. Until such time, my vote is that we let the room cool off a bit and then give him a chance to resume this stimulating discussion in the manner in which I know we are all capable.
M |
