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: pat mudge who wrote (4070)	5/6/2000 9:45:00 PM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 5853

Just the facts, please. We are all interested in only the facts. The fact is that George Gilder only charges $295 per year for the Gildertech Letter, not $500. You claim that we pay $500. Your research on this item is faulty. In fact, this error seems to match any errors of fact that you deride in George. Research, Research, Research. From research one gets at the facts.

To: pat mudge who wrote (4070)	5/6/2000 11:08:00 PM
From: greedsgd_2000	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

PAT - BASICALLY YOU ARE A PROFESSIONAL NITPICKER, monday morning quarter backing in areas beyond your capabilities and expertise.

To: pat mudge who wrote (4070)	5/7/2000 10:13:00 AM
From: Michael F. Donadio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5853

<<I'd expect to be ripped apart if I abused my subscribers' trust.>> Hi Pat, I personally agreed with your analysis of both AVNX and LUMM and have invested in neither at this time. That said, it was not your analysis that I found troublesome but the manner with which you chose got it across. I know that you are able convince people of the accuracy and significance of your information without impugning them. I think that is a trait to hold onto. I've subscribed to three investment letters at various times -- Michael Murphy, John Dessaurer and George Gilder. My favorite by far has been George Gilder. I really look forward to getting it in spite of the price. It's his grasp of technology and outlook that intrigues me. The companies that are representative of his ascendant technologies become starting points for my own analysis. Clearly he points to companies that may be years away from profitability, if ever, or at absurd valuations, both high and low. I do want to know, however, what he "thinks" is good. If anything bothers me about his report it is the momentum plays that follow them. I do NOT blame Gilder for that, however, but see it reflective of the whole technology fad mentality that has become an epidemic. His visions are well thought out and well presented. If many choose to act on it en mass they will have to answer for their success or failure. (Although I don't want to be dragged in because a "bubble" collapses taking the good with the bad.) Ascendant technologies by their nature are future events, and as you and I well know DSL was an ascendant technology in '96 and is only now really coming into its own. I think we imagined it would be sooner. What it all comes down to is that I don't expect people who are acting in good faith to be ripped apart. It ruins the quality of life and the willingness of others to share. It would take a lot to convince me that intentional deception is at play. Short of that, I am the one who is subscribing, I am the one who is investing. I can discontinue his report if I find his analysis faulty. Your presentation of facts as you see them may help in that decision and I very much appreciated your valuable insights. Much of your analysis, however, does not really explore the indepth ramifications of a technology the way a Gilder or a Kurweil does. In may estimate, your analysis is certainly worthy of pay. If you should choose to create a newsletter, and if I subscribed I would still object if a Steve or a whoever "ripped you apart" without convincing me of deliberate deception on your part. The fact that you may be wrong I know to be inherently true -- not because you charge but because you are human. Still looking forward to your posts, Michael

To: pat mudge who wrote (4070)	5/9/2000 12:55:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Respond to of 5853

Pat, Re: "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" First, why is there no way across the "chasm" you mention? Absurd! What an incredible bit of hachet job fluff this is. I may not think much of your way across the "chasm", given that you seem to often make statements that are plainly false according to the very public back-up source material you present, but by golly so long as there is such source material available which all can draw upon, and Mr. Gilder hasn't stolen it away from the world, your scenario doesn't pass the giggle test from the get go. He's off the hook? NO! He is ON the hook for the success of the technologies and companies he picks, and whether his subscribers have taken positions or not, this remains the case. Price is irrelevant? Price IS relevant- and he offers historically sage parameters for basing buy/sell decisions- valuation being a favorite. You truly show your lack of knowledge where Mr. Gilder is concerned. I'd advise gaining a deeper understanding of what he DOES tell subscribers before offering uninformed opinion like the above. I'll suggest to you the wisdom in the notion that for all the "fundamental" numbers one can come up with on a company, the ultimate fundamental that can best predict success is the viability of a company's products. A desirable and ultimately successful product will in retrospect often destroy the predictive value of all technical and fundamental numbers alike. Mr Gilder sticks to the meaty endeavor of finding ultimately successful technology, a GREAT indicator for making responsible investment decisions(no, I didn't say the only indicator, and neither did he, OF COURSE!). In short, "...pin-pointing ascendant technologies and making responsible investment calls..." are decidedly NOT "...light-years apart" at all. Pinpointing the technology is a prime part and parcel of making great investment calls. This is exactly what Gilder offers. If he pretended valuation was of no importance, you'd have a basis to knock him, but in fact while he does not actively offer such analysis, he DOES recognize the need for the reader to do it. Heck, it seems you'd have him make all the calls for his readers- thus making them far more like dependent zombies than you think they are now. So on the one hand, you, like me, see red flags upon noticing "slavish devotion to any leader or cause,(well said, Pat, and I MEAN that!)" but on the other hand, you want him to offer that which would serve to ask from his readers an even greater level of devotion. I happen to like the fact that he concentrates on identifying technologies- and no more. This fact, though you perhaps hadn't seen it yet, is a great hedge against his readers becoming zombie-like followers. With so much pertinent investment information beyond the technology left uncovered by Gilder, his readers necessarily are openly encouraged to be self-sufficient, not zombies. If you doubt this, you simply haven't understood the man just yet, nor his reasons for not doing price, IMO. Dan B