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: tekboy who wrote (43276)	6/6/2001 10:48:11 PM
From: substancep	Respond to of 54805

"...embed the GG in--a broader portfolio strategy tailored to individual needs, circumstances, etc..." AMEN to that!! P

To: tekboy who wrote (43276)	6/7/2001 12:31:47 AM
From: EnricoPalazzo	Read Replies (1) \| 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 I disagree. The authors' error was neither in failing to provide an all-in-one guide to investing, nor in failing to provide a portfolio management strategy. The authors' error was in claiming to provide an all-in-one guide to investing when in hindsight, they obviously had not. Had the authors simply said, we think that these sorts of companies will grow very quickly and safely over the long-term, and are usually undervalued for the following reasons, I don't think many on this thread would have a gripe. Instead, they said these companies are always undervalued, and you should sell only in these specific circumstances. They were simply too confident, and their theories too rigid and acontextual. Our error was in treating it as a bible or "field manual", and not a flawed but great book (until the flaws became very obvious). ardethan@mooreprobablyexpectedthelakerstowingameonetoo.net Edit: TMH's post reminds me of another point. We don't actually know that the authors were wrong. It may be that the "buy at any price" is the best long-run strategy out there. It got us MSFT and INTC in 1999, yes, but it also got us MSFT and INTC in 1990 as well.

To: tekboy who wrote (43276)	6/7/2001 9:59:12 AM
From: areokat	Respond to of 54805

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. Well, I'll throw this into the discussion for consideration. Events such as the Tech wreak of 2000, crash of '87, 74 bear market and 70 nifty 50 train wreak just don't happen often enough for the "average" investor to guard against. And the majority of us are average when it comes to investing, not Buffett superstars. From the long term perspective, where will sebl,ntap,rmbs,qcom,gmst etc. be in a couple more years? We think we know because of their looking like they meet many of the criteria for being gorilla but we wont know for some time. To me Moore's book addresses a specific case in regards to investing, one that I happen to think is in tune with the current times and give us a way of determining investments that have a high probability of above returns over a long period of time. But, as been pointed out, there were two other people involved in The Book and they appear to me to have made major contributions to it, especially in regards to the investment aspects. Early on Moore revealed that he personally invested primarily in mutual funds which I don't see as being a very active Gorilla Gamer so I do discount some of his recent revelations. Sounds more like many of us recently, sometimes confused. None of which reduces the value of his four books, all of which I still read and learn from. Kat@andIdidn'tseeitcomingeither,shoulda.edu