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: Bruce Brown who wrote (39296)	2/15/2001 11:43:52 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Bruce, You make some really good points about Moore's comments in the context of generalities about explanations in the book as to some of the reason the market takes the shape it does. However, even if we accept those generalities in that context, we need to remember that the only reason he mentions them in the book is because they should be percieved as relatively short-term aberrations in the life of a Gorilla Gaming stock that are far less important than product-specific and company-specific fundamentals. If his intent was to put his comments in that context, he didn't. Moreover, I'd like to clarify that I responded only to his points about timing the market. The fact that he believes the sector hasn't yet bottomed and that he believes he knows what the benchmark of that bottom is and that he also believes that it hasn't achieved that benchmark is the stuff that I don't remember being discussed anywhere in the book. Just the opposite, those are the things that he specifically says are not what Gorilla Gaming is about (pages 17 - 19). What disturbs me is that he thinks it's so important to make his market-timing comments in the listserv that he believes he is repeating them. --Mike Buckley

To: Bruce Brown who wrote (39296)	2/15/2001 12:45:02 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Bruce: Your observations on non tech stock prices relative to their ongoing growth is very useful for comparison purposes. Having watched market commentary and market behavior for many years, it is my observation that the "street" is heavily weighted with people who believe that recommending a large company with a long track record is somehow safer and more prudent than considering its relative future compared to a dynamic younger company, especially in a "risky" area such as technology. Hence prices are skewed by the "advice" given by old line money managers and also their holdings in the funds they manage. As an example, consider the usual suspects mentioned by guests on Louis R's TV show. Re your last point:<<<< The long lasting effects of the dot.com bubble might not be so easily tossed off and if one believes in regression to the mean - who knows where valuations could end up? There certainly is no lack of evidence for the amount of distribution that took place from the institutional investors over the past 6 to 8 months as the technology stocks went down in valuation. That certainly ties in with 'understanding the stock market' because that is how it works. The reverse is true as the institutional investors accumulate shares of companies as EPS and revenues ramp up - or the perception that EPS growth and revenue growth is preparing to ramp up. An example of this would have been in Qualcomm from the $51 range beginning last summer and through the sell off since September as the shares that were distributed from the earlier mania run up bottomed, based and slowly began the accumulation process which ran to $106 before another round of distribution took place. Yet, as we have been discussing on this thread - it is really starting to appear that more ducks are in a row for Qualcomm's future that we can latch on to than in August or September of 1999.>>>>> Some have asked who here have held a stock for 10 years or more. Good point. The only one I held for close to that time period was CSCO, which I bought in 1990 and finally gave away the last shares to charity in 1999 when the basis was about 3 cents. I cite this as evidence that there are advantages to a long term buy and hold strategy through times of difficulty in the market as a whole and Cisco in particular during the long period I owned it. Qualcomm to me is a similar situation. I agree with your characterization of its pattern since last summer. But as one who has held on through its past peak of $200 to the present (not its long term peak IMO), I would suggest that the Gorilla Game ideas are valid and helpful in sticking with the best while experimenting with others as I suspect most of us here do. And yes, it does seem as if the wireless data opportunity is very much ahead for the Q, so the future looks brighter over time as that draws nearer. (Again, suggest that fundamentals are key, prices fluctuate) Just IMO of course. Welcome back. Best. Cha2