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: LindyBill who wrote (11287)	11/28/1999 8:53:00 AM
From: avanti77	Read Replies (7) \| Respond to of 54805

<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!> Might I suggest that posters quit posting because this thread has become like a club of the "good old boys." There's a lot of massaging of each other's egos, and I've noted "Uncle" Frank, Lindy, and other pre-boomers rarely respond to entries made by women. Unfortunately for the thread, some of the good old boys have a double standard, that is forgivably not obvious to them, but apparent to some well-educated women who have simply opted to go elsewhere. JMO.

To: LindyBill who wrote (11287)	11/28/1999 11:23:00 AM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 54805

LindyBill, << RE: Group Think - This thread was started and initially posted to by people who believed that there was value in the "Gorilla Game" Concept >> Some good thoughts, Lindy. The thing that I enjoy most about this thread is that we all subscribe to (or are exploring to what degree we should subscribe to) a common investment strategy. Despite this, we are all able to challenge each others thought process, present opposing points of view, and refine our own thoughts, without creating heated argument. As exemplified by the inclusion of GMST in many of our portfolios, we tend to reach similar conclusions, but I think we do it by applying a great deal of independent examination, using common criteria, and do not reach these conclusions casually. The denizens of this thread, are inclined to avoid the "Group Think" that prevails on the "Dell" thread (just as one example) that you mention, or the "Coming of Range" thread, because they wish to cut through the hype and examine a company in a more objective fashion. We to chose to do this in the company of individuals we have come to respect for their analytical skills. I don't think this is "Group Think". As re GMST, this thread was (and had been) rather focused on an objective examination of Gemstar, at the exact time that a significant defining event occurred. For this reason many of us pulled the trigger quickly, even as other individuals suggested examining this a bit further (since we had not anticipated a Gemstar/TV Guide Merger). It is not an accident that many of us now hold (and have even loaded up on) GMST, but I don't think it is "Group Think", as that term is generally used. - Eric -

To: LindyBill who wrote (11287)	11/28/1999 1:22:00 PM
From: StockHawk	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Re: Group Think I think it is a very healthy sign that this thread seems so concerned with the possibility of group think. The thread portfolio analysis that Stan did such a wonderful job on may have led some to conclude that group think is in evidence since so many people own QCOM and especially GMST. However, I think the opposite conclusion is evident. Start with QCOM. It has been followed for almost as long as the thread has existed. Evidence of its gorilladom has been presented frequently and strongly, and the thread creators, Frank and Lindy, held it exclusively. No stock has been more central to this thread than QCOM, yet for quite a few people it is a minor holding, and for a couple its not even in their portfolios. On the other hand, despite the lack of positive posts for MSFT and INTC both are more widely held than most other stocks. And many, many stocks that have received much attention and strong support on this thread are nevertheless absent from most portfolios presented. For example, Cha2 has presented his 3 stock game more than a dozen times here, and it shows incredible performance. The #3 stock in that portfolio, SFE was mentioned favorably on this thread and the Godzilla thread many times by people like Teflon and myself. Just about every post was favorable and yet hardly anyone has bought SFE. A similar fate has befallen stocks like CTXS, SNDK and VISX. I was especially surprised by the lack of CTXS holders. I also think that anyone who reads the thread for any length of time will see the high levels of disagreement. Just about every premise is challenged, and even the stocks with the most agreement, such as QCOM, still garner insightful contrarian posts. And anyone who has ever nominated a stock here has felt the bruises of rebuttals that always follow. As Lindy pointed out, any time a group comes together it is because of some commonality. We are not a random cross section of humanity here. We share certain unique traits: 1. we are investors 2. we invest in individual stocks 3. we have Internet access 4. we believe in technology stocks so strongly that we joined an organization called Silicon Investor 5. we read a book called the Gorilla Game and instead of tossing it aside as so much fluff, we made it a key part of our investment philosophies 6. we read, and react to this thread So yes there are agreements here about certain issues - that's not surprising, but that does not mean we have succumbed to group think. If 20 smart Europeans were sitting around discussing the world in 1502 and 19 of them agreed that the world was round, it would have been foolish to discount their conclusions on the basis of group think. Now having said that, I hope everyone agrees with me <g>. StockHawk

To: LindyBill who wrote (11287)	11/29/1999 12:14:00 PM
From: edkaiser	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 54805

>>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! Let me make a response to that, because I am one of "the type". A few weeks ago, I tried to participate ... Message 11927765 From that post, I hope, a couple of things are clear. First of all, I am a rank amatuer when it comes to the GG. Second, I am trying to learn GG and respectful of what you do here. The thread could have responded several ways: 1) encourage my interest and participation 2) give me helpful advice on how to proceed 3) ignore me 4) dismiss me and my thoughts. The response I received, for the most part was a mixture of 3 and 4, including statements like: "LOL, you just don't get what we're doing here do you"; "read the whole book and then try again"; "you need to read every post to this group". The result was that I didn't feel like participating on the thread anymore. I withdrew my submission and was even thanked for doing so. So who was hurt? Well, me a little, but I have a pretty tough skin, and have continued reading the book and the thread and trying to apply the concepts. It does make it a little harder to learn them, though, when I can't discuss them with anyone. But what about the thread, was it hurt? Yes, I think so. I think if the thread would take opportunities like the one I presented to engage in substantive discussions about the GG and how it relates to individual companies, it would make the thread stronger and more interesting. I say that because: 1) It would help new GGers to learn concepts quicker and better. 2) It would help more experienced gamers stay focused on GG concepts and remember what is in the book. 3) It would give everyone a chance to stay on topic for the thread, when they are tempted to engage in other discussions. 4) It might result in the identification of Gorillas and/or kings that might not be otherwise identified. Unfortunately, one of the impressions I get here is that someone like me who wants to discuss a company you haven't looked at yet is expected to do a lot of work without any help before it (and I) is worthy of consideration. The burden of proof is placed 100% on me as if I am the only person that has anything to gain by having my "work" be accepted by the thread. I submit to you that it benefits everyone if I find a gorilla, not just me, and certainly not the company itself. And if I'm wrong, and it's just a shiny pebble? I still think an open discussion of whether it is or not, along with constructive comments about gorilla characteristics, and the correct way to apply GG concepts, is more becoming to the thread than a lot of what has been posted recently. I'm sorry, I realize that last line sounds like I'm taking an unfair shot at you, but I don't know how else to say it. There really is a lot that gets posted here that isn't G or K related. Respectfully; ThatDadGuy / Ed