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.

Non-Tech : The Critical Investing Workshop -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tekboy who wrote (34900)	3/20/2001 3:16:59 PM
From: jambo-bwana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 35685

you defended your use of "comeuppance" by providing what seemed to you an innocuous definition, which included the phrase... I notice that you were not hesitant in providing a dictionary definition to make your point with bonuss. I provided a dictionary definition of what "comeuppance" means - which included the term "just desserts"- since it seemed that you were incensed by what you alleged was my alleged "glee" at the losses that the g&k'ers had suffered. But you launched into your tirade well before I ever used the offending words and you are now attempting to gloss over that fact. But I am not hesitant about using those words in the correct context because I think that it is appropriate and I elaborated on that in this post: Message 15411832 To reiterate, gorilla gaming is a sound approach to identify the stocks of excellent companies - it is foolhardy to then make the assumption that because one has identified a company using the criteria outlined by Moore, that it would be fine to buy it irrespective of valuation or to hold on to it unhedged irrespective of how over valued it becomes. This rather obvious bit of wisdom, until recently, seems to have been anathema on the g&k thread and those who have come on the thread to broach it, have been viewed as interlopers. Although, it seems to have registered with some on the thread; the head of the thread still does not get it. Message 15519584 An excerpt: But that old geezer billionaire, Buffett, doesn't he make it look simple? He just looks for great companies, buys them, and holds on UF missed one of the most important things that Buffett looks for: undervalued companies. Also, Buffett proves the value of diversification and that it need not impact performance; let me see $10,000 invested in BRK.A at its inception in the 1960s' would be worth $34 million today - or something on those lines. I would call those "gorilla" type returns - and with relatively low beta stocks! jambo-bwana@whenwilltheyeverlearn.edu