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: gdichaz who wrote (12221)	12/6/1999 11:13:00 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Cha2, "respectfully" disagreeing is what we do on this thread. On the other thread, however... :0) You ask, "are you really suggesting that the thread benefits...from dismissing potential baby princes...by the simple expedient of calling them 'shiny pebbles'?" Yes, that is what I am suggesting. The thread has to have its own "barriers to entry" in order to avoid unproductive chaos, and over the course of 1999 it has prospered by erecting two: mandating the use of GG methodology (albeit with some modifications) by posters, and concentration on companies whose technology has "crossed the chasm." By referring to pre-tornado and/or non-G&K companies as "shiny pebbles" and generally avoiding discussion of them, we have been able to retain a laser-like focus on a few extraordinary (promising and safe) investment opportunities. This has enriched both the discussion and the threadsters, and all I am saying is that I believe this should continue to be our approach in Y2K as well. You go on to say, "I suggest that the baby or young princes...deserve careful consideration - not dismissal out of hand - if we are serious here about looking for future Kings, not just gorillas." Well, yes and no. Should we be aware of such companies? Perhaps. Should we invest in them, hoping to get the full run-up if lightning strikes? Up to the individual. But I would say that "careful consideration" by the thread (i.e., more than a couple of posts) should come only when their technologies seem on the verge of crossing the chasm, or when the winds of the tornado start whipping up. Otherwise this would open up the thread to discussion of nearly every promising tech company out there, and that way madness lies. You continue, "a shiny pebble is inanimate, stationary. It just lies there. Nothing could be a more absurd characterization of the likes of the Q and JDSU in 1998." Once again, with all due respect, I disagree. Shiny pebbles can indeed rise before the tornado begins, but they start to rise even more sharply once it starts. I think the example you raise supports me, not you: siliconinvestor.com You continue, "if the purpose is to shut out new poster's nominations of companies that are not yet obvious gorillas or kings, let's be frank about that." I think you mean "be Franq about that," but with a slight but important change, I think the answer is "yes." My suggestion would be that we exclude nominations of companies "that have no significant near-to-midterm prospect of becoming a gorilla or king." You continue, "If the purpose is to protect uninformed investors from themselves, let's be open about that." I think it's "yes" there too--with the caveat that even experienced investors need reminding of the basics to keep them from unconsciously slipping into greater risk-acceptance than they might want. You conclude, "The future is in fact in the 'shiny pebbles'...this is where the gorillas and kings will come from...is due diligence on them to be discouraged?" I don't disagree with the first two points, but would still give a qualified "yes" to the question. Shiny Pebbles come in two categories: companies that won't become gorillas or kings, and companies that will. Serious DD on the first category should indeed be discouraged, and even serious DD on the second would be most helpful to others when the companies' ultimate status is, as it were, "clear and present." Let me put it this way: Harvard or Yale (or Qualcomm or JDSU, for that matter) don't send talent scouts out to nursery schools or even elementary schools looking for bright kids in order to track their progress. The universities wait until high school to begin their DD, and the companies presumably wait until graduate school or later. We should do something comparable--hold our thread-fire until the dauphins and gorilla-fetuses are approaching their maturity. That way we conserve bandwidth and increase signal-to-noise ratio while still remaining poised to jump in when the kids are about to assume the throne or emerge from the womb, and are the most attractive investments for us. Think back on why post 833--your finest hour!<GGG>--was so significant. yours, bubbleboy/Ares@toinfinityandbeyond.com

To: gdichaz who wrote (12221)	12/7/1999 12:18:00 AM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Cha2, that was a beautifully reasoned, impassioned post, but based on a false premise. The term Shiny Pebble is not meant to be a pejorative (shape up, Tekboy); it came from a legend that Dancelot or Merlin told us about. Maybe Sir Ares, as penance for starting this ruckus, will re-post it. There is nothing wrong with small caps, Cha2, and if I were as gifted a stock picker as you, I would be playing them as well. But since I'm not (who is?), I'll stick with Gorillas and Kings, which is what this thread was intended to do. uf