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 (12803)	12/15/1999 3:57:00 AM
From: Normandi	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

To All I wish to extend my sincerest appreciation to all whom contribute to this thread... I have been a long-term reader and been rewarded beyond belief for just investing in the stocks discussed. Thank you all..I can not express my gratitude enough. May you all continue this wonderful forum, and others more gifted than I come forward, contribute and prosper. Wishing YOU ALL the very best of this Happy Season and Good Health in the following years. Respectfully.. Cheers Norm

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (12803)	12/15/1999 4:22:00 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Reflections on a young Gorilla: As a lot of you can imagine, being 100% Q this last 6 weeks has been an interesting experience for me, to say the least! As I was driving home from dancing in LA tonight, my thoughts were on, "How high is too high?" First off, lets realize that if this was 1992, and this was happening, Q would probably is at about 200 right now, if that. The Market has inflated, and I see no reason for it to stop inflating. The economy is excellent, 401 pensions are forcing money in, compounded by the fact that the baby boomer generation is the one putting the bucks away now. But, as I look to the future, I am reminded of what I said last April about Q. This is not a normal Gorilla. The lock they have on their market is not due to the normal evolutionary engineering that results in a patient, it is a break though in Physics at as "Law of Nature" level. And the break through came at the perfect time. It came at a time when the market was ready to explode with wireless communication. Q has a system that is not only superior, but is so much cheaper than the others to install and run that other systems really cannot compete with it. Compare that with Cisco or Intel. With them, you pay a premium price for a better system. Not with CDMA! Compare it to MSFT. There you buy a system that engineers hate. With Qualcomm, you buy a system that even engineers with competitive companies are starting to admit is superior. If you are selling Q to a vendor, and he complains about the royalty that Q gets, you can say, " What difference does is make to you whether we get 1%, 5% 10% or 100% of what you pay as a royalty? You are paying to install the best system, that is also the cheapest to operate." The fundamentals of this company, combined with the growth available right now in the wireless market, have resulted in an opportunity that I do not believe has ever happened before in business history.

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (12803)	12/15/1999 6:40:00 AM
From: Bruce Brown	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

I'm utterly confused. Mike, no need to be confused. The posting of the Geoff Moore piece from the list serve run by Bill Meade was at fault (I forget who posted it) because if taken out of context - it was confusing. A discussion has been going on over the past few weeks on the list serve digests concerning middlemen, small vendors in the B2B space and the 'big guys'. Geoff's post came out of that discussion and made no sense posted here without the context being clarified. My quick description of that post was probably just as much at fault, because a lot of water has gone under the bridge in my thought process after being involved on the list serve discussion over the months in regards to B2B. Whether or not the revised manual on page 321 is relevant or not - doesn't really matter. Yes, the stock market is applying 'Internet like' valuations to the B2B players because they are looking at the market opportunity rather than the financial models. My term 'playing as we go' really was a reflection of what the list serve is discovering and uncovering over the past few months about the B2B space and the players involved in that space. I guess, for the best description, I should post all the relevant posts leading up to Geoff's post which would set it all straight. However, we are talking about a plethora of discussion and I don't want to glut up the thread with that issue - especially since the information and discussion of B2B has been carrying on quite well on the GG investing in the eWorld thread. In summary, discussion has revolved around the knowledge, or predicted move to a trillion dollars of ebusiness taking place in the next few years and who exactly is going to benefit from those transactions as well as how to invest in that group. Is it the middlemen, is it the end business, is it the supply chain, etc... . From there, lots of questions about companies involved in each of those segments surfaced and how do we, as investors, take advantage of that. In contrast to the revised manual that said one should not use the basket approach in the Godzilla Game, Geoff - in retrospect - said that if one played an early basket approach in the portal game they would have consolidated in the emerging winner once it was apparent that Yahoo! was that emerging victor. However, Yahoo did not start out as a portal player, but that's another issue which Chapter 12 covers quite well in the 'option effect' of Godzilla investing. From the revised manual on page 343 under section 4: Don't buy baskets. "We don't like this outcome - we would like more room to make mistakes and recover - but when circumstances change, so must strategies" Then Geoff said this on the list serve: The value in the godzilla game, of course, goes only to the godzilla, so you have to figure in a risk discount for your company not gaining that status. But I think we can play godzilla games using the same buy the basket approach and consolidating in the godzilla as soon as it emerges. The search engine game ending in Yahoo would have tracked to this pattern well I think. The games to stay away from in my view are the king-ish games -- don't have a name for them (shame on me!) -- like the pet food play, or anything where the market will actually want additional competitors going forward. Geoff Whether this is an admonition by Geoff that the circumstances have changed and therefore the strategy within the B2B sector has evolved to employ a basket approach or not - is up to you to decide. Whether it is or isn't an investment strategy reverse of 180 degrees is open for interpretation. However, to me - within the context of the discussion - it is viewed that a strategy change has been noted. My 'playing as we go' comment was directed at this particular segment and excellent B2B discussion that has been carrying on within the list serve GG group. I apologize for not taking the required time to thoroughly explain it in my post yesterday, but I wasn't the one who posted Geoff's comments and would not have done so myself without a clear explanation of the context. I already took the 'basket approach' within the B2B space many months ago regardless of what the revised manual said about it at the time and I have addressed this point quite well on the eWorld thread. I remain in a basket and will always be looking for the consolidation phase moving forward. Real time, real money, real stocks. Hopefully, this clears up any utter confusion. If not, hey - I tried. BB