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 (11262)	11/27/1999 8:19:00 PM
From: JohnG	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Group Think. Well, in our discussion of GMST the other day, I was getting quite a bit of emotional reaction to my rational approach challenging GMST's long term viability. The group doesn't exactly "hold lightly" this stock. JohnG

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (11262)	11/28/1999 12:15:00 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Respond to of 54805

Frank, I received a PM from a lurker who claims a background in clinical psychology and diagnoses us as very strongly into GT. Tell your clinical psychologist that I hate generalizations. :) With a group this size, there will always be some who exercise their own due diligigence and weigh the writing that appears in this thread along with all their other sources of research. There will always be some who do enough of their own research to get by and are thus swayed by the stuff in our thread. And there will also always be the folks who do practically none of their own research, feel they don't have the capability to fully appreciate the issues (they're probably wrong about that), and out of deep respect for some of the posters invest almost entirely based on the thinking of others. My point is that there will be a mix of how people come by their conclusions and why they act on them. We have to decide for ourselves which depiction best describes each of us. Each of us has to accept the consequences of our actions. If that's group think, none of us are in control of it yet each of us is definitely in control of the impact it does or does not have on us. End of rant. --Mike Buckley P. S. For now. :)

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (11262)	11/28/1999 4:19:00 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 54805

RE: Group Think This thread was started and initially posted to by people who believed that there was value in the "Gorilla Game" Concept. The people who have joined us since have also subscribed to this, or they would have left. These means we are composed of a self-selected group who tends to think alike. This is the generic basis for any type of group in the world, IMO. So the reason we tend to agree with each other is because of that, not because of any stock we have chosen. The intelligence and thinking came first, then the stock. With the Dell thread, for instance, the Stock came first, then the people joined the thread, and the stock was the rallying point, not the method of acquisition. This type of attitude can be found on the Q thread, although not, IMO, to the extent I observed it on the Dell thread last year. What I am saying is, "Birds of a Feather flock together". The "Birds" on the Dell thread were not looking for any reasons for Dell to go down, and would "pick to death", any interloper who brought up a negative. The "Birds" on this thread are constantly challenging each other about the stocks we are investing in. Q is not exempt! I have said, on this thread, that I cannot find any downside to Q. this does not mean I have quit looking for one. For instance, I have been pondering recently, the effect on Q, if China became a big customer, and China attacked Taiwan! Far out? I am not too sure. One of the gratifying side effects of our self-selection is that we automatically do not attract the type of thread mates that we do not like on many of the other threads. You have all noticed the type, I am sure, who makes a couple of posts here, don't like the answers they get, and quit posting!

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (11262)	11/28/1999 2:04:00 PM
From: Dr. Id	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 54805

JDB, regarding Group Think, I received a PM from a lurker who claims a background in clinical psychology and diagnoses us as very strongly into GT. I know you made light of it in your post to Apollo, but as a survivor of the dell thread, I am deeply aware of the damage that condition can have on one's portfolio, and disturbed at the possibility it may have impact on our investment decisions. I'm not sure how this can be proven or disproved. Any ideas? Maybe you could just reread the last 3 or 4 thousand post from a clinical angle <gg>. Frank, I was out of town for the weekend, so haven't had a chance to respond in full to the question of "group think" and other "psychological" issues in regard to the thread and the posted portfolios. As for rereading the last 3 or 4 thousand posts, I think once is enough! :-) (And apologies in advance for what turned out to be a long-winded reply!) In regard to groupthink, to reiterate it is defined as a decision-making situation where the group suspends objectivity and careful analysis in an effort to preserve group cohesiveness. I originally brought it up because this thread in particular places a very high value on group cohesiveness and mutual respect (good things), which make it particular susceptible to groupthink (a bad thing). The most oft stated example of such a process is the Kennedy cabinet and the Bay of Pigs. Since bringing up the issue several months ago, I think that the thread seems to be more guarded than most in trying to ward off a groupthink process. I have not seen members attacked for bringing up arguments against QCOM or GMST; rather, I have seen counter-arguments from knowledgeable sources. Someone brought up that they felt attacked on the GMST thread for questioning the prospects for the company. My impression is that NY Stew has done so much research that he is in an excellent position to evaluate these arguments and respond. In these cases, what we have to guard against isn't so much groupthink, but rather something known as a confirmatory bias. That is, when information is distorted in such a way as to confirm an established hypothesis. When we spend a great deal of time (and money) in researching something, we tend to want our results to come out a certain way. I'm not saying that this is occurring, but it is something to guard against. What I was more troubled by in Apollo's survey was the number of members of the thread who are so heavily weighted in QCOM. I understand Lindy's position of 100% QCOM as being an extremely aggressive portfolio with the goal of trying to make as much as possible in a short time frame. However, I have seen that many members (with highly disparate ages, goals, etc) are trying to emulate this portfolio. It seems that many are taking pride in having only one or two investments and this seems extremely risky. I know that the Gorilla Game preaches consolidation. However, there does seem to be an awful lot of confidence placed in OUR HYPOTHESES about two particular companies (QCOM and GMST). I emphasize the word hypotheses to highlight that the success of these companies is being taken as a given rather than a strong possibility. It is somewhat likened to driving a very safe car when possessing an excellent driving record, and deciding that you no longer need insurance. In that case, you are placing a lot of faith in the car manufacturer not making a mistake, and in the cautiousness of other drivers. One drunk driver can ruin everything. To take QCOM (or GMST) as a certainty may be extremely profitable but may also leave one open to disaster. There is a fair amount of denial and rationalization on the thread as to the possibility of failure with QCOM and GMST. I'm not saying that everyone on the thread is exhibiting this by any means. Mike Buckley wrote a nice note a few days ago challenging someone who seemed to by hyping QCOM as the opportunity of a lifetime. QCOM may be, as well as JDSU and GMST. But something COULD happen to derail these stories. The fact that we can't see what it is doesn't mean that it can't happen. One other aspect of the Gorilla Game which I've been thinking about is that it is a theory (albeit a very good one IMHO) about investing, that hasn't been tested over the long haul or in a bear market. It may be the most profitable investment vehicle in history, or it may be (more likely) an excellent guide toward a way of looking at technology. However, all of us are a bit caught up in a euphoria over our successes of the past year. There is a danger in starting to think that we know something more than we may know... The old admonition of not confusing brains for a bull market comes to mind. If in technology, it's difficult to have done poorly in the past year, and I fear that we may lose some of the caution that will distinguish the winners from those who possibly will "wish they'd been more cautious" in the coming years. To paraphrase the CEO from one of the established old gorillas, "only the paranoid survive". We need to keep a healthy dose of paranoia on this thread, even in regard to the stocks that we've "fallen in love" with. (Whatever happened to the older admonition to "never fall in love with a stock?) Jeff p.s. I too love QCOM and GMST! And my personal goal is to start only liking them a lot. :-)