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: saukriver who wrote (32920)	10/8/2000 1:31:31 PM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 54805

saukriver, << The issue is whether Intel was ever a gorilla to begin with >> I find that one even harder to swallow than INTC all of a sudden becoming a King which I find very hard to swallow. If it is the case we might as well throw the manual out the window, and find a new investing theory. Man, we are talking heresy <g>. Interpreting the manual is one thing, reinventing it is another. It is almost like changing the ground rules for including companies in the Index. <ggg> Moore's statements and examples about Intel's gorillahood in the manual are numerous (so numerous I won't bother to quote) as are those about AMD's Monkeyhood. Although they exist elsewhere in the FM or RFM, I would suggest a reread of "Gorilla Power at Work: The Example of Intel" (FM page 74, RFM page 81) and Gorillas Under Attack and Counterattacking (FM page 76, RFM page 83). << It licensed is technology to AMD, thereby giving away a lock on it CPU technology >> This is a VERY KEY point. This event was what made INTC a gorilla. It is what gave it a lock on CPU technology, not what gave it away. ... and here I can't resist just a few of the to numerous quotes from Moore on topic. In Moore's words (FM page 46, RFM page 53) talking about proprietary open architecture: "Other companies leverage the hypergrowth market of the gorilla ..." <snip > ... "IBM insisted that Intel license its 8086 chip architecture to second sources, although Intel resisted this idea; and in this proved a boon to Intel's own growth. The market grew incredibly fast, thereby institutionalizing Intel's architecture as a de facto standard." <snip> *Customers are locked into the new architecture* , and the amount of new business on Main Street is such that one vendor can handle all volume requirements comfortably. Now it becomes more advantageous to the gorilla to restrict licensing. This situation is reflected in Intel's attempts after 1994 to withdraw or limit the right to clone its chips." and finally (on Monkeys v. Gorillas): "AMD's return is not bad, except when you compare it to Intel's. Only gorillas deliver gorilla like returns." This year is NOT Intel's finest (although it was roaring right along till the earnings warning), and it can legitimately be considered a gorilla under attack (once again), but like Cisco who has also been through this any number of times (even had an earnings surprise which was a FANTASTIC buying opportunity that I still smile about), they are a silverback, and I am going to cease and desist with the IMO's. - Eric -

To: saukriver who wrote (32920)	10/8/2000 9:27:21 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

>> The issue is whether Intel was ever a gorilla to begin with. It licensed is technology to AMD, thereby giving away a lock on it CPU technology. The term "open, proprietary technology" means that a Gorilla can license use of its patents without jeopardizing its genetic heritage. On another front, the debate centers on whether Intel is a Gorilla or a King. In either case, provided their market cap is >10B and they are owned by >10% of the G&K community, they merit inclusion in the GKI. Please refer to posts regarding the consensus reached late last year with respect to the GKI selection criteria. uf