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: StockHawk who wrote (39357)	2/16/2001 10:50:32 AM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Saying "stocks go up in the long run, especially gorillas--so therefore I will buy this gorilla at any price" is probably a better investment model than many---because you eliminate a certain amount of risk by investing in a gorilla instead of a company that has a greater risk of failing. But imho, this model can be improved a couple of ways. One way is to add some valuation criteria, similar to Pirah Niman's, Malcolm Bersohn's or other valuation criteria you prefer, and then hold off purchases until your Gorilla meets the valuation criteria in your model. A second way to improve the basic model, as Tom Chwojko-Frank pointed out, is to dollar cost average in to your Gorilla over an extended period of time---thus removing the market risk of buying at a near-term top. Theoretically, employing either of these "enhanced" models should increase your returns over time when compared to the basic "buy a gorilla at any time" model. (IMHO) Best, Huey

To: StockHawk who wrote (39357)	2/17/2001 11:11:20 AM
From: LowProle	Respond to of 54805

StockHawk: >>can we permanently dismiss the untenable notion that anytime is a good time to buy a gorilla?<< That line is one I was never comfortable with as it too much of an absolute. Also, I've always looked fondly at timing attempts despite their disdain here. A year ago statements such as the above were easy to accept as recent history proved them true. Now recent history makes such statements appear wrong-headed. That's a good point and one to keep in mind. The less credible a statement sounds, the more brilliant the speaker appears to be when the statement seems to be proven true. In this case though we just had to wait longer than we expected for Mr. Market to catch up. chimney

To: StockHawk who wrote (39357)	2/17/2001 6:20:45 PM
From: StockHawk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

OT - Iceland and the Northern Lights (Aurora Borealis) - I plan to visit Iceland at the end of this month. Iceland in winter is not a typical vacation destination, but it offers the possibility to see the Northern Lights. It is an interesting subject, and on the chance anyone might be interested, I thought I would post a bit of information here. (If anyone one this board happens to be from Iceland I would be delighted to hear from you.) The Northern Lights are dependent on the sun, and the solar activity that gives rise to them varies on an eleven year cycle. This winter marks the cycle's peak, a time when the lights are most intense and most frequent. Seeing the Northern Lights depends primarily on your latitude, and most of the world's population lives too far south. In New York, for example, we may have the opportunity to see the aurora perhaps one night every five years. But too far north is no good either. There is a relatively narrow band that circles the upper part of the globe in an irregular, not constant pattern. Even a city such as Oslo, which is thought of as Northern, is too far Southern (visible 3 to 5 nights per year), yet the very top of Norway is a bit too far north. However, there are communities about 3/4 up in Norway that can expect to see the aurora on most winter nights. Parts of Alaska are also good. Ditto parts of Northern Canada. Iceland falls right in the zone, and it is relatively easy to get to from the Eastern United States. Winter is a much better time to see the Lights, as the sky never gets dark enough in Summer. The viewing season generally ends in April. Also, a bright moon will obscure the lights, so it is best to be looking on a night near the new moon. Even with the right place, right season, and right moon phase, it is still a gamble, as cloudy weather is a dealbreaker. Iceland is warmed by the Gulf Stream and so is not all that cold in winter - at least no colder than NYC (and that's good), but the Gulf Stream also brings condensation and cloudy weather, and you can not see the aurora if it is cloudy. Also, since it is a natural phenominon there is no guarantee it will be present even if it is clear. But Rekjavik sounds like a neat place and I've not been to Iceland before, so lights or no, I'm sure it will be worthwhile. StockHawk