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 (12232)	12/7/1999 12:11:00 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Cha2, thanks for the kind words. All the mutual respect here is getting me a bit queasy; let's go over to the other thread and duke it out! :0) About the specifics of the terminology, I wouldn't press the metaphorical aspects of the term "shiny pebble" too far. It's more a group designation than anything else, and was not meant to imply that they have stone-like characteristics or anything similar. Hell, we've talked about gorillas "hatching," about "gorillalets," and about DNA tests and ultrasound images of gorilla embryos--all ways of getting at the same thing you want us to consider, I think... You ask whether, to use my educational metaphor, Q and JDSU were in "high school" last year and thus worthy of consideration. I think the answer is "absolutely." As so often, I take my cue from Lindy: before the Ericsson deal he knew about Q, had done basic DD, and was monitoring its prospects. When the deal was announced, therefore, he was able to recognize the significance of and act on the information more quickly than many others. In the same way, Stew (and to some extent Merlin) first brought Gemstar to the thread's attention many months ago. Even though there was a general consensus at the time that it was pebblish, this put it on people's radar screens, so that when the story became clearer during the fall and early winter, people were poised to jump in quickly. IMO, that--and not groupthink, as Apollo suggested--is what accounts for the heavy representation of GMST in threadsters' portfolios. We were told of this youngster with great PSAT scores, as it were, then heard the kid did extremely well on the SATs, and have offered "early admission" rather than waiting for the formal application process to begin! :0) Another example: several people from Ausdauer on have tried to make a G&K case for Sandisk. I think the rough thread consensus to date considers it still a pebble, however. But we know about the sector and the company, and know what to look for. If, say, tomorrow we all found out that Compact Flash had become (and was highly likely to remain) the dominant flash standard, and that Sandisk had won full legal rights to significant CF royalties, then I bet a lot of people here would jump in right away. So the question isn't really "should we exclude all discussion of non-G&Ks," but rather, "just how much discussion should there be of potential G&Ks." I would answer "some but not much, increasing in proportion to the potential significance of the technology in question and the proximity of full G&K status." So how about the following deal: you research all your pebbles, and then let us know when the best ones are about to blossom (as with post 833) so we can profit from all your work! <GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG> bubbleboy/Ares@presidentofthederivativeinvestorclub,akaThievesInc.com