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: tekboy who wrote (24703)	5/14/2000 12:16:00 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

tekboy, The issue here isn't individual vs. professional investors, but rather whether anybody can reliably beat the averages on a long-term, risk-adjusted basis. I couldn't disagree more. The risk-adjusted basis is only for the academics. I wish I could point you to David Gardner's piece about risk-adjusted thinking because he expressed it so much better than I can. I do remember that his piece mentioned that if we had considered the prospects of putting a person on the moon from a risk-adjusted basis we never would have tried. One of the reasons I mentioned that I don't think it's random issues we're dealing with, that instead it's an inability to properly model the immensely complex and dynamically changing sets of factors, is because it's impossible to determine the risk-adjusted aspect of each person's limitations and capabilities. Fortunately, humans aren't quantifiable. Therefore, there is no way to accurately adjust for risk. More important though is that I'm not the least bit concerned about beating the market averages on a risk-adjusted basis. I'm only concerned about beating them. If I beat them over long periods of time, I don't care how risk-adjusted the returns are. When I began investing seriously, I decided that if I couldn't reasonably consistently beat the broad market I would simply invest in an index. I still think that should be everyone's approach. Try it for years and if you don't beat the indexes, join 'em. The only money I invest is money that I can risk losing. Because I can risk it, I don't adjust for risk. (That's NOT to be confused with my attempt to walk a fine line of achieving the greatest reward with the least possible risk, which is why I'm attracted to Gorilla Gaming.) Extraordinarily few mutual fund managers have been able to do so, despite tons of information, lots of effort, and huge incentives. ... Anybody who is buying individual stocks as more than a gamble, it seems to me, should be able to explain why he or she is likely to do better than the pros. I can explain it. You can. Each of us can. Simply turn to page 19 of the paperback version of Beating the Dow, by Michael O'Higgins, where you'll find the beginning of Chapter 4, titled "How the Pros Try to Beat the Market -- and Why Most Don't Succeed." We, the individual investors, are not limited by the set of rules and expectations that constrain the pros. That's why we can beat them. By the way, O'Higgins favorite reason that most pros underperform is because "they make the process too complicated." In my mind, Gorilla Gaming makes the process reasonably simple: 1) Identify growth industries 2) Identify companies with proprietary, open technologies that are forming strong value chains 3) Hold for the long term. I can't help but note that this conversation began with the concept of trying to time the rise and fall of stocks, a process that adds complication. Why add complication when the pros suffer from it? Why not focus on simplifying the process as a means of beating the pros and the indexes? --Mike Buckley

To: tekboy who wrote (24703)	5/14/2000 3:08:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

tekboy: Hope you will come out of your self imposed thread jail for further discussion. To quote: Point one: .....should be able to explain why he or she is likely to do better than the pros. (Hint: Good answers might highlight things like smaller dollar amounts, long-term investing horizons, lack of peer pressure, greater discipline, having read the manual, etc.) Yes. All those hints are good pointers to why an individual has a better chance than the "pros". Point two: ...I see little conceptual difference between the arrogance behind trying stock-picking and the arrogance behind trying market-timing. I accept that some very smart people I respect greatly feel they can do one and not the other, but I'm still trying to figure out (taxes aside!!!) why that should be so. I would suggest that the best way to deal with why it is perhaps more practical for an individual to choose a technology within which to invest, and then leaders within that technology is twofold at least: the research resources are available time is available On market timing: the basis for judgement is difficult to obtain early enough to act with the quickness required. The emotional content of market fluctuations "passeth logical analysis" In brief, careful research, analysis, thinking and weighted selection are possible in choosing stocks to buy and hold. Timing requires a different set of skills and one huge amount of luck. And speaking of luck, I wish you luck squared. Best. Cha2