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: StockHawk who wrote (15096)	1/13/2000 11:46:00 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

StockHawk, Great format! I'm not sure many people will be compulsive enough to follow through on all of it, but it is a wonderful format. The one suggestion I would make is that the type of classification be added -- enabling hardware, enabling software, or applications software. The inherent ramifications are critically important. --Mike Buckley

To: StockHawk who wrote (15096)	1/13/2000 11:49:00 PM
From: chaz	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 54805

Thanks stockhawk. I agree we should present some sort of initial format, but I also think your format is far more ambitious than we have a right to ask. I'd be happy if the nature of the business is discussed in some depth, a revenue and net history is included, and a rundown of competitors is offered. I think we can expect the first pass by these folks will be positive...it's their "baby" so to speak, and they'll put the best foot forward as they can. I don't think they'll be able to identify the crossed chasm, (sometimes we can't either, until much later), and same goes for a tornado. What they might be able to do is review news for possible market forecasts, gleaning other tidbits of interest as they do so. I do like the idea of giving them a list of references to check out. Many of them have said they don't know where to start, so having such a list will be a major help for them. There are now 13 companies on the list: INTF CKFR BVSN PHCM GSTRF STDI RSAS INKT RMFD BRCM VRTS VRIO EXDS First pick rights go to the following, in this order: Bretsky James Sinclair tdcunningham (who's put a reserve on BVSN) SAM + his brother, Rickus123 DM (Denise, who says her hubby knows Brocade) Eric L...who asked for RSAS Bruce Brown John Stichnicoth (I think I blew the spelling...sorry about that, John) I want each of these folks to know that they'll get all the help in the world from the rest of us. Folks, just get the process started...dig out the basics, make it fun for yourselves to do just that, and pretty soon you'll find the process guides itself, and you, to a pretty good analysis. Try to figure out what would make you buy the stock, and then tell us. Good hunting folks.

To: StockHawk who wrote (15096)	1/14/2000 12:24:00 AM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Great suggestion for a format, Stock Hawk. Apollo posted something similar a few months ago, but we weren't ready for that level of organization at the time. It would be interesting to compare it with yours if we can find it. uf

To: StockHawk who wrote (15096)	1/14/2000 9:22:00 AM
From: John Stichnoth	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Terrific outline, Hawk. You're absolutely right that we should cover each of those areas. I have one additional factor, which however is maybe not a strictly Gorilla/King issue. That issue is management. Where did they come from? Have they had successes? How broad is the management team (a la JDSU, maybe), or are we looking at a dominant CEO (a la Gemstar?). How has the management team been compensated, vis-a-vis revenue and profit growth? That kind of thing. (Note: The management issue is the largest reason I decided in favor of Gemstar, and have steered clear of ACTV/IATV). Best, John

To: StockHawk who wrote (15096)	1/17/2000 7:59:00 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

<< It might be a good idea to set up a format to be followed in presenting candidates >> Last Thursday in Post # 15097 you proposed a sensible and well organized approach to presenting candidates. Since this there has been some commentary that I've (sort of) paid attention to. Is it your feeling that there is general consensus that this is indeed the "recommended" format? Have you noted any "suggestions" from subsequent posts that should be incorporated? * Merlin says - type of classification be added -- enabling hardware, enabling software, or applications software. The inherent ramifications are critically important. [good suggestion] * Chaz says - more ambitious than we have a right to ask. [also a good point - we have an outline but we are not being graded - I think the presenter has final discretion] * Frank says - Apollo had a format [did we find it] * John says - add Management overview [appropriate and could be a factor, certainly an option] I would like your comments but also welcome the comments of others as relates to where we think we are at with the format. Nice work! - Eric -