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: Uncle Frank who wrote (7057)	9/25/1999 10:09:00 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Frank, I don't think you're being contentious in the slightest. However, ... :) The "out of phase" remark was meant to apply to your comment about Intel dependence on Rambus, Mike. I see rmbs as totally dependent on Intel... The two aren't mutually exclusive. Remember that since day one I've always said that the Intel/Rambus and Microsoft/Citrix relationships are both symbiotic. In each case the partners need each other. One reason the risk remains high is because we don't know how long that's going to be. The tornado, if and when it comes for either Citrix or Rambus, might or might not help answer those questions. I was concerned the thread was drifting from the theme of low risk/[high] reward investing. I understand your concern, but I have a similar concern that this stuff about gorilla-game theory is patently tested. It's not. All the test cases occurred when the stock market and the economy were (are) in a period of unprecedented prosperity. More important, it's a lot easier to look in the rear view mirror and determine when tornados began, when chimps were rendered chimps forever and when they were taken out of the hunt, etc., etc. We as investors are playing the gorilla game in real time with real money, which is far different from anything in the book. If the authors had really followed through, they would have invested real money in a publicly published portfolio just as is done with the Motley Fool portfolios. It was only months after they put up their not-real portfolio that they brought that to a halt. In summary, while I share your view that it's easy for the thread to drift from the low risk/high reward scneario, I'm not as convinced as some are that this gorilla-game stuff is as risk-free as I think some are beginning to think it might be. I think it's just as easy for the thread to drift into what some people think is a no risk/high return scenario as it is for people to drift into thinking the Citrixs and Rambuses of the world are less risky than you and I might believe. I have no problem with anyone putting all their eggs in one stock because I know the people who are doing that are willingly accepting the responsibility and the risk. But if we're going to keep the discussion strictly to the manual, there's no suggestion anywhere in the manual that that's what the authors meant by consolidation. Just the opposite, in the mother gorilla game of all time, the authors' strategy was to invest in many gorillas and potential gorillas. And I'm not trying to be contentious either, despite that it might appear that way. :) It's probably a good idea that we run these ideas up the flagpole occasionally so everyone can continually be reminded and be given the chance to re-evaluate what's best for each of us. In that light, the discussion you and I are having about this couldn't possibly hurt anyone and might very well be very helpful. --Mike Buckley