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.

Technology Stocks : George Gilder - Forbes ASAP -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael F. Donadio who wrote (4063)	5/6/2000 12:20:00 PM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Respond to of 5853

Michael: Thanks for a level-headed post from one who must be a level-headed guy. George Gilder has definitively earned his reputation as a visionary. This does not mean that any of us lesser mortals are to follow him blindly. Nor does it give any of us who find a flaw or two in his approach to investing in tomorrow's technological leaders the right to impugn his integrity or attempt to cast aspersions on his character. Gilder brings a breath of fresh air to the investment horizon. Many old (meaning fundamentalist) investors run from him or attempt to discredit his approach. But 85% of the time, George is right on and those who follow his investment approach or also right on 85% of the time. Those are pretty good odds.

To: Michael F. Donadio who wrote (4063)	5/6/2000 7:59:00 PM
From: pat mudge	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 5853

Some of his recent choices based on technology (eg: Terayon, Globalstar, etc.) may not turn out to be good businesses. But I think he works hard on trying to understand the various technologies, and does a decent job of highlighting his view of "ascendant technologies" for the technologically challenged (like me). I've taken this from the JDSU thread because I think it's accurate. I would add that pin-pointing ascendant technologies and making responsible investment calls are light-years apart. By not addressing a myriad of issues, including valuations, Gilder leaves his followers on the edge of a chasm with no way across. For a fee he shares his over-arching vision, allows early glimpses of his chosen companies, and once readers have taken positions --- metaphorically spread-eagle across the chasm --- he's off the hook. After all, he's a visionary and price is irrelevant. While there's a lot I don't like in this approach --- slavish devotion to any leader or cause sends up red flags --- I become incensed when it turns out the game's been rigged -- that not only doesn't he do price, the trip to the edge of the chasm was based on false information. It's one thing to analyze a company and later discover they've changed, it's quite another to paint a false picture from the outset. Your post and others expressing anger have focused on me and not on the issues. If I've summarized Avanex incorrectly, then provide data to back your claims. And if I've summarized correctly, then analyze why you're angry at me and not the person who painted the false picture initially. If you discover I'm right, then someone you trust has served you wrong and your anger is misdirected. Incidentally, I don't charge $500 a year to read my opinions and if I did, I'd expect to be ripped apart if I abused my subscribers' trust. Pat