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 (46214)	9/4/2001 9:05:06 PM
From: ratan lal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

So you think John is Smart but not Intelligent?

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (46214)	9/4/2001 9:58:28 PM
From: Seeker of Truth	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Dear Everybody, I have learned something extremely valuable from John Shannon, which is to focus on the cash flow from operations and not mix it with cash from options or otherwise raised. I suppose this is what he means by free cash flow. It does not depend on somebody buying your shares or your bonds. It 's not something that you CAN bill. It's something that you have already been paid. That point is worth a lot. No more perfunctory looking at earnings. Some companies that look like a king or a gorilla may turn out to be profitless or have very limited profitability when measured that way. The technology isn't the only matter to consider. malcolm@mustkeeponlookingatvaluation.com

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (46214)	9/5/2001 12:34:20 AM
From: Mathemagician	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

If John were both intelligent and sincere about wanting to participate this forum, he could easily make his points while maintaining the standard for polite discourse. With all due respect, it is my opinion that John has been responding (with a good bit of restraint I might add) to the confrontational tone of some of the posters here. For example, one poster asked him to provide a record of his performance and then another berated him for posting history. I guess you missed John's admission that he has never invested in tech to a significant degree. Like many other value investors, he missed the bear, but he also missed the preceding bull. I did not. The last decade was a bull market for more than just tech. Presuming that he missed the bull market by not investing in tech is, well, presumptuous. Similarly, one did not need to be invested in tech in order to experience losses during the recent bear market. The only thing JS has "admitted" is that he participated in a bull market by being long in whichever asset class suited his style. However, unlike many of the posters here (myself included) JS went essentially all cash at the appropriate time due to valuation concerns. I want to understand his metric. Are his criteria any less applicable to tech investing or G&K candidates than Mike's or Bruce's? Maybe, but I would like to find out for myself. Have you noticed that virtually nothing John has said is specific to the Gorilla Game or the vetting of G&K candidates? Since his focus is on macro-economics and general market/valuation issues... I noticed that market valuation is part of his strategy. Of course, I also noticed that the majority of the discussion around these parts over the past few months has centered on valuation and the determination of entry/exit points for G&K candidates. Implicit is the fact that discussing the macro-economic environment in this context is entirely appropriate. To claim otherwise is equivalent to claiming that the macro-economic environment has no effect on the valuation of stocks. But imo, his continued presence here will be increasingly disruptive. And since I also believe that he is a smart fellow, perhaps that's been his agenda all along. With this point I must respectfully disagree. He is certainly nowhere near as caustic as Goldfinger or JHP was before they earned the honor of topping my "Ignore" list. If he becomes increasingly disruptive as you suggest, this group has proven itself adept at handling that situation. Until such time, my vote is that we let the room cool off a bit and then give him a chance to resume this stimulating discussion in the manner in which I know we are all capable. M

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (46214)	9/5/2001 12:53:03 AM
From: Mathemagician	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Now that I reread your post, a particular comment that you made left me with a bit of a funny feeling. It was this: That doesn't make sense to me. If John were both intelligent and sincere about wanting to participate this forum, he could easily make his points while maintaining the standard for polite discourse. Since he hasn't, I have to presume he is either not too bright or not too sincere. It seems to me that your point could have been made very effectively without adding personal insult. I feel that this statement violates the very "standard for polite discourse" which it promotes. This is exactly the sort of statement that has caused many a poster on this thread to be rebuffed. I know that if someone referred to one of our regulars in those terms you would (correctly) be among the first to stand at their defense. Respectfully, M

To: Uncle Frank who wrote (46214)	9/5/2001 1:13:34 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

UF, well that was an interesting post, and it begs a response. I will start with this comment: "I guess you missed John's admission that he has never invested in tech to a significant degree". Unfortunately, I missed that admission too. Perhaps you passed through a senior moment or two when you read my post? I admitted only that I missed investing in Cisco. It is rather daring of you to make such an assertion, isn't it? Unfortunately you are also incorrect. And from this ladder of inference you have constructed hostile motives of mine? You seek to discredit me from your mistaken basis? If intentional, that is libel. Otherwise, it is merely slander. Or perhaps it is just an oversight. Should we suspect the rest of your assertions are based on such similar inserted "facts"? Is this the level of detail with which you would have me present my facts? Or was this merely a momentary and regretable lapse? Because it was distressing to me to read that post. In lecturing me you set yourself up as an example. Should I follow your words, or your deeds? Which brings me to the standard of polite discourse. Well I don't know about your definition of polite, but if you feel you can toss around phrases that parse precisely in context and meaning as "F-uf" and remain qualified to preach from the bully pulpit of improper manners, well prosperous investing to you too! Finally, as to pulling a number on you, no. I am being absolutely level straight with you and with the thread. It is distressing to see my words twisted to make a trap for fools, but I did not intend you to go there. You appear to be doing a good enough job of twisting the facts and pulling a number on yourself, all by yourself. So hoist yourself on your own petard for all I care, that's your perogative and I can not stop you. But I will get involved when you blame it on me instead of the guy in the mirror. Disrupting the thread? Certainly those who misinterpret what I post and then assume that their interpretation is perfect and take a hostile stance in return would find themselves disrupted. My crusty style may be disruptive too, but I thought to be able to say "I'm Sorry" and have thread context parse that as an apology. On topic? I have posted either in reply to a direct question, or precisely in counter or complement or addition to another post. Roughly to the same degree as yourself. My purpose to exchange ideas and explore alternative opinions and seek objective analytical truths. Even if it means tipping some sacred cows. With this off my chest I do hope that we can return to discussions that are topical as the thread is the judge, because I am sincerely interested in the concept of investing in gorillas without getting fleeced. Regardless of how it may seem. Sincerely, John