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: Mathemagician who wrote (32611)	9/29/2000 5:29:12 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

mathemagician, By using the Gorilla Game methodology, we should be able to select those ten stocks in such a way that we can expect two or three really big gainers, with the "losers" either flat or at a market rate of return. A great example would be using the three companies from the Front Office Game as part of the ten companies. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that there won't be any losers. Just the opposite, I think it's reasonable to think that we won't appreciate the fundamental reasons to sell at least one of the three stocks until after the price has tanked. Using the Front Office Game as an example might in fact be a good example that the game can work marvelously well despite initially choosing a stock that ultimately tanks, which I think is truly the more important point to make. My records show that Vantive was "purchased" on May 25, 1998, for a net cost of $2495.25. On 10/24/99 it was "sold" at a substantial loss generating net proceeds totalling only $998.88. That's a 60% loss in 17 months. (All numbers include commissions.) Even more revealing is that had Siebel been the only stock "purchased" on that Memorial Day weekend in 1998, the Game would have increased in value 868%. Using the closing value on September 29, 2000, the Game has increased in value 856%. That's not at a bad trade-off for not having to guess ahead of time which of the four leading gorilla candidates would emerge as the gorilla. Considering that I'm arbitrarily using today's closing price for Siebel which has had an enormous run-up to new highs, my guess is that had this discussion taken place just two or three weeks ago, an analysis of the choice to buy only Siebel in the beginning would have rendered a showcase not only for less safety but also for a game with less total value. --Mike Buckley P. S. This response to you really takes the wind out of my sails for the upcoming quarterly Front Office report. :)