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 (13433)	12/28/1999 11:29:00 PM
From: James C. Mc Gowan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Franq and Justin: re: ARMHY and GK status I have no argument that ARMHY may not meet the criteria that Franq has recently set for GK status for Y2K. However, it has occurred to me that these criteria are in question by some, e.g. GMST(is it in the Tornado; is it a King, a Gorilla, what is it anyway). This does not prevent me from taking a nice stake in GMST on its merits, G or K or neither, as yet, or if ever. I point out that the GK portfolio from 1999 included 22 firms; for Y2K that list has been whittled down to 11; only QCOM, GMST,CSCO, INTC, MSFT and SEBL are now Gorillas and JDSU, EMC, NTAP, LU and SUNW are now Kings. What of the other 11 that apparently met the G or K criteria this past year, but now are "disappeared". From what I can decipher, they did not meet the new criteria of being "widely held". Perhaps the 1999 list includes some "hot companies" that are now no longer considered as meeting G and K criteria. By this reasoning, I take it that I may well expect the G and K list for 2001 may include what are considered G or K for Y2K, but will also exclude some from the Y2K list that no longer meet G and K criteria, whatever that may be at the time; perhaps they will be considered erstwhile G or K's and, in reality, only "hot companies" of the past. Justin fairly reasons that performance cannot be the only criteria that would allow a candidate to be correctly included as a G or K. My shameless attempt at subterfuge; i.e. to nominate the best performing Watch and Wait firm for the G and K list, has been exposed. As I wrote earlier, I really didn't expect serious consideration for ARMHY on the G and K list, and according to existing criteria, that may well be the most appropriate decision. My efforts are only directed at bringing attention to a very worthy candidate for inclusion in the portfolios of those who can see the potential of this firm. I'll check back in a year's time to see what develops as regards inclusion/exclusion in the G and K list. Regardless of my obvious bias regarding ARMHY, I have benefited greatly from all the DD and reasoned consideration of the merits of various investment vehicles on this thread, and I applaud the hard work done to provide a forum for this analysis for the small investor. I have found the alternatives, e.g., financial press, stockbrokers, to be woefully lacking, if not downright misleading. Regards, James P.S: ARMHY will split again soon, its second 4 to 1 split within the past 12 months. Maybe a chance to pick up a few shares; they are hard to come by now.

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (13433)	12/29/1999 2:47:00 PM
From: rel4490	Respond to of 54805

"If you study our approach, you'll come to realize that Kings don't grow into Gorillas..." UF, true, but not the whole story. See pages 243-244 of the RFM: "...at the beginning of the tornado it is not always clear whether a given market will develop around a gorilla game ...or whether it will default to a royalty game...we always assume that a GG investor will not be able to distinguish between kings and gorillas at the time of purchase and will indiscriminately buy candidates for either position."