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: Mike Buckley who wrote (7325)	10/2/1999 2:52:00 AM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 54805

OK, now we're getting somewhere! Putting aside your unMerlinworthy attempt to shift blame to Cha2 for the chasm-crossing call <g>, I think we're largely in agreement. A couple of points, however. 1. <<What do you mean by the discontinuous behavior of the share price?>> If one looks at the QCOM chart from a distance, it looks like two entirely different charts cobbled together. One noodles along in a relatively narrow (retrospectively) trading range, the other--starting early spring 99--resembles nothing so much as a lightning bolt going upward. 2. <<In my mind, the understanding of the term, chasm, is held by so few that it doesn't enter into the realm of being an influencer in the scope of "public recognition.">> Well, whatever you want to call it, the "public" saw SOMETHING new in early 99, whether or not the fundamentals had been good before that, and I maintain that it was almost certainly just what your initial post mentioned. People felt the Ericsson deal removed the last major hurdle to widespread CDMA adoption, and thus began to factor huge future royalty streams into QCOM's price. My point is that the settlement of the GMST lawsuits might just do something similar (altho not as dramatic) in terms of general public recognition of GMST's prospects. 3. As for taking such base considerations into account, however, you say <<That's too close to attempting to time the stock market for me. I'll stick strictly to watching the fundamentals and let the stock go where it will over long periods of time.>> That's entirely defensible, but as we've seen, few are as pure of heart as you and thus able to resist such attempts. Dancelot, for example, would never have made his goal in such a short time had he not jumped in and out of winners with near-impeccable timing. Here's what I suggest. Clearly you are right that fundamentals are the ultimate long-term driver of stock prices, and analysis based on them the only real way to be sure that what one is doing is investing rather than simply gambling. So your type of "fundamentalist" GG analysis is absolutely critical. But I submit that "perceptual" GG analysis--i.e., a careful look at how a company's gorilla status and prospects are perceived by the street--can and should play a role in timing decisions. I've heard it said (by UF among others, I believe) that "technical analysis is useful for short-term timing, but not for long-term investing." I submit that "perceptual gorilla gaming" is useful in precisely the same way, and has a sounder theoretical basis. I submit further that LindyB is a closet perceptual GGer, and I make the following predictions: he will get into GMST when at least one of the lawsuits is settled, and the stock price will increase at a perceptibly higher rate afterwards. sleepily, tekboy