Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dr. Id who wrote (5019)	8/21/1999 2:19:00 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 54805

Jeff, I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I do appreciate your thoughts and would like to address them. I very strongly believe that every regular participant in our thread is doing his/her independent thinking about the industries, companies and stocks that are mentioned here. We've actually had some significant disagreement about certain industries, such as when anyone mentions sem-conductors in a positive light which is soon to be followed by a huge groan from Frank and me. :) There are other examples I won't bother mentioning (mostly 'cause I can't think of them at the moment!) Regarding the Q, it's understandable why the consensus has been heavily if not unanimously optimistic about Qualcomm given the irrefutable facts about recent positive developments in the fundamentals. However, I also don't think anyone around here is prone to think that Qualcomm is a "can't miss" or a "sure thing." Even Lindy who is 100% invested in Qualcomm hasn't ever written that. Though he has clearly stated that he feels Qualcomm has limited risk based on his study of gorillas, that's far away from anything being guaranteed. Similarly, though Gregg Powers and Geroge Gilder have been as openly optimistic as anyone about Qualcomm in other threads, both have stressed that management must execute, implying that if they don't the unbfloding story could eventually be quite sad. You probably have no reason to realize that some of us are doing virtually everything we can to eliminate any perception of hype in the folder that can lead to the concerns you so eloquently and appropriately raise. As an example, I am aware of some facts about Qualcomm's stock that in the context of gorilla-gaming implications are, frankly, mind-boggling positive. Yet I haven't posted those facts for fear that some lurkers I'm not aware of who might have less discipline than others of us might not absorb those facts in the conservative context we would prefer. As another example, though I own Siebel and have been publicly posting the results and progress of my Front Office Software gorilla game, I have personally not proclaimed Siebel Systems the gorilla. That's in contrast with Geoff Moore who says all of Silicon Valley has. Until Oracle and other ERP players remove virtually all doubt from my mind that they can't possibily overtake Siebel, Siebel Systems in my mind remains a gorilla wannabe. The point of mentioning Moore is relevant to the vital issue you bring to light. I (many of us) disagreed with Moore when he said Qualcomm wasn't a gorilla and that CDMA was not the turf of a gorilla game. Many might have construed our disagreement with him as a reaction to the possibility that he was throwing cold water on our hot investment. Yet when people realize that I disagree just as vehemently with him about declaring Siebel the gorilla (I have a long position in Siebel stock) they can appreciate that I'll agree or disagree with Moore based on my assessment of the available information, not the implications of my personal investments. Lastly, you are of course absolutely right that we always need to keep a lid on the ever-present possibilities of optimism clouding our objective, dispassionate business judgement. I appreciate you putting the spotlight on that. At the risk of offending our leader, Uncle Frank, I hereby proclaim you our psychologist in residence who will be held accountable for the responsibility of giving us ample warning of any indications showing evidence of group-think. Someone more knowledgeable of Camelot will need to come up with the right name to reflect your newly appointed position. Thanks again for your post! --Mike Buckley

To: Dr. Id who wrote (5019)	8/21/1999 4:34:00 PM
From: Apollo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Jeff: I agree about the risks of chat rooms generally, on SI or Yahoo. It is a fascinating phenomenon, and the psychology that exists, which you probably best understand. Some chat rooms are filled with animals of multiple stripes; should an outlier happen onto their turf, it can become a feeding frenzy. Witness your reference to another thread on semiconductors. I think this thread is filled with mainly mature individuals. That maturity, in conjunction with intellect and the fact that many come from all walks of life, would seem to prevent excessive group-think. I think there are enough objective, independent-minded individuals, that differing points of view are encouraged and brought to the fore. This chat room is in some ways similar to being on a team. Members have different skill sets, or talents; it would seem we nearly all are participating in the same game, ie Q; I would think that since we are all vested, negative information would be posted quickly here and evaluated so that many of us could reduce our exposure. The team approach is such that we would likely warn eachother of imminent storm clouds. There are examples of us not just encouraging eachother to buy, but also to get out. There are examples of disagreements. Some of us have chosen to take positions in potential gorillas, which are mid-chasm, such as Gemstar and Rambus. Some are widely diversified, some restricted to a handful of stocks, and one famous and nimble individual entirely concentrated in the Q alone. Some weeks ago, this latter resulted in heavy discussion and widely separate opinions about investing philosophy. I also think that this is not a thread focused on 1 company, but on many, and that invites greater heterogeneity of membership. OTOH, the Cisco thread or the Ascend thread or others could be quite biased, and have in the past been less tolerant of hetergeneic opinions. Some with differing opinions are improperly labeled "thread morons"; some may fit that label, but others do not IMHO, and are sickeningly barbecued. Finally, some threads are chaperoned by Stalin or Gestapo clones, whilest here, we have been supervised by mature, experienced, diplomatic and mannered leaders. We disciples are learning more here than just Q fundamentals, gorilla-hunting priniciples, the definition of diversification or otherwise. stan

To: Dr. Id who wrote (5019)	8/21/1999 5:05:00 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

I'm also aware that there are ways of avoiding groupthink. In particular, group members should be encouraged to play "devil's advocate" That is precisely the reason I posted the post from the other thread, and invited comment. I wanted Merlin and others to do what they did in answering it. I have only been around the market in a big way for 6 years, and still have a long way to go in my learning curve. I think Q is the closest thing to a "Lock" any of us will ever see. That makes it scary.

To: Dr. Id who wrote (5019)	8/21/1999 7:37:00 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

>> Mike (and Lindy and Frank and anyone else who chooses to respond!)... I fear a level of what Social Psychologists call "Group Think", whereby the cohesiveness of the group leads to poor judgment and decision making. Mike, Bill, and Stan have already responded, but I think I'll donate my .02 even if my comments are a little redundant. If you read the profiles of the regulars on this thread, you will see that most of our threadmates are experienced, successful investors who are more inclined to lead than to follow the herd. The only conformity that we have achieved lies in the consistent usage of Gorilla Game terminology, and adherence to polite debate. My recent exchanges with DownSouth <who showed me no respect at all> on the ntap thread are a good example of the way our system works: Message 11007718 The degree of agreement on Q is very unusual for the G&K crowd. We can't even get a consensus on Microsoft these days, and it created the Gorilla standard. Stew has put out great posts on gmst, Mike has repeatedly nominated sebl, Stan has educated us on rmbs, DownSouth has shown us the wonderful fundamentals of ntap, and LindyBill has been pushing swing dancing - and none of them has gathered interest from more than a small percentage of the G&Kers. >> I have read all of the posts here on the Q I hate to say this, but you'll need to read the non-Q posts in order to appreciate the dynamics of this group of anarchistic investors; there's only 4,621 of them <g>. I'm glad you stopped by, Thinkalot, and hope you'll stick around and contribute some more. Frank