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: chaz who wrote (21820)	3/30/2000 10:44:00 PM
From: John Stichnoth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Re criteria for Project Hunt--One aim I had in proposing INFS, was to bring the focus back to companies that are not just stories. Do we want to limit PH reports just to Gorilla candidates? I think not, even though a significant number of thread participants are not interested in royalty, and even though W&W is very much a pongid-oriented. Do we want to limit the reports to "telecosm" participants? I think that is implied in your first question, and I disagree. By narrowing the focus too much we will tend to increase risk, because our resulting investments will be focused in a single sector of the economy. Most of us have developed variations of the approach in TFM, and we place varying importance on issues brought up in the book. (I tend to value management quality and existing profits more highly than most around here, for instance.) All of us, I am sure, also try to consider issues not in the book at all. Occasionally we also see reference to Lynch's criteria. The ideas he set forth in "One Up", which I just reread, are still valid, and offer a nice complement to Moore's topics. INFS was proposed as a company with royalty credentials, which would also be interesting to Lynch proponents. The discussion on the company took fewer than 20 posts, by the end of which anyone interested had a good feel for the company. I think this is exactly the way the thread should work. Inviting a broader selection of companies for reports will result in reports that are uninteresting to some participants. But it will also result in the chance for each of us to see a broader selection of companies that we might be interested in--and that all have some claim to Gorilla or King status. All imho, of course. Best, John PS--But, does that mean I'll have to read about biotechs? Arghh!! <g>

To: chaz who wrote (21820)	3/30/2000 11:31:00 PM
From: rushnomore	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

RE: Project Hunt Chaz, I appreciate your concerns about Project Hunt subject companies. However, a report that shows that a particular company is not likely to be a gorilla or king, or is not in a gorilla game, could sometimes be just what we need to know.

To: chaz who wrote (21820)	3/31/2000 12:35:00 PM
From: Eric Jacobson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Chaz: So, with the thread's invitation to disagree: I propose now that all HUNT candidates must: 1) Be Profitable 2) Be suitable for the W&W list OK, I'll bite and disagree for two reasons. First, being profitable isn't part of the gorilla game criteria. Second, it isn't possible to discern whether a company is suitable for the W&W list until you've completed enough due diligence to compile a Project Hunt report. It's not reasonable to impose this limitation on Project Hunt reports before they've been completed, and once they're completed they may as well be published with the appropriate findings regarding gorilla/royalty game and tornado status. I agree with rushomore: I get a lot of value from Project Hunt reports regardless of the conclusions of the report. In fact, I get more value from the Hunt reports than most of the thread bloat that goes one here (how's that tekboy?). The reason is it helps us hone our skills, recognize there are several companies that have gorilla DNA even if they have not yet entered the tornado, and appreciate how rare the G&Ks we've all come to know and love truly are. I can appreciate and understand Uncle Frank's and Chaz's concerns regarding the thread getting distracted by extensive discussion of shiny pebbles and other nonsense. This is something that has plagued the thread from time to time for a variety of reasons. I don't see Project Hunt as the cause - in fact, I think most of the Hunt reports done by thread regulars help cut down on extraneous banter because at least they put things in perspective in a concise set of posts. If there is excessive banter about a company that clearly doesn't meet the W&W criteria, then I agree with Frank it would be appropriate for a thread elder to step in and suggest the discussion be taken elsewhere, like to a company-specific thread.