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: Uncle Frank who wrote (43275)	6/6/2001 10:27:05 PM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 54805

The scope of the fm is woefully inadequate with respect to portfolio management that's your key point, not the one about "rules for divesting." But I don't think it's a devastating criticism, in the sense that it doesn't mean the GG framework is wrong, just that it's incomplete. The authors' error was not in failing to provide an all-in-one guide to investing. It was in failing to stress the fact that readers needed to supplement the GG with--or, more accurately, embed the GG in--a broader portfolio strategy tailored to individual needs, circumstances, etc. Luckily, we've been able to thrash out such issues here, thus helping to fill the gap. tekboy/Ares@ok,sowegottoitayearlate,butnobody'sperfect.#*!

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (43275)	6/6/2001 11:36:29 PM
From: Pirah Naman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

I think macro considerations need to be incorporated in order to guarantee some degree of capital preservation. Can I interest you in some valuation tools? Free trials! The scope of the fm is woefully inadequate with respect to portfolio management. That is another kettle of fish, but there are ways.... - Pirah

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (43275)	6/7/2001 12:20:33 AM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

I think macro considerations need to be incorporated in order to guarantee some degree of capital preservation. With the advantage of hindsight of the last year and some, this is easy to say, but I for one would like to see some specific theories put to the test. My guess is that many of the simple solutions which have been offered would end up with lower total returns than simply hanging in there since they would miss even more of the upside than the downside. Just speculation, mind you, but we have yet to see a timing strategy prove itself. While I heartily agree that there is value in paying attention to more than there is in the manual, I am not at all convinced that there is any dependable criteria for selling which outperforms ... it may be good for peace of mind, but that is quite a different issue. Buying, maybe, given that there is usually more than one attractive investment on offer, so picking a time to invest in one when it is on a down cycle seems like a stronger play. But, my guess is that the real emotion here is behind when to get out. The scope of the fm is woefully inadequate with respect to portfolio management. Has anyone ever pretended that it was a guide to portfolio management? Different folks, different needs, different portfolios. People in certain positions might choose to go 100% gorilla. People in other positions might decide to accept greater risk and the potential for greater reward by investing earlier in the TALC. Some might play it safe by having 5 years in cash. Some might even be so sophisticated as Sir Lyre in having a "layered" approach to companies at different points in the cycle. All of which is a perfectly valid area of study and council, but doesn't seem to me to have a lot to do with Geoffrey Moore.