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: chaz who wrote (47183)	9/27/2001 1:16:09 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 54805

Chaz, the business plans of the dot coms would be our undoing I think the biggest undoing was investors paying premiums that were growing faster than the companies they were investing in. That speaks to my contention that people ought to spend more time focusing on why stocks rise, not just why they fall. Secondarily, people were paying for so-called competitive advantages that were barely competitive if at all competitive (all the second-tier retail dot coms) and advantages that weren't at all sustainable (paying for EXDS, thinking that growing server farms faster than anyone else was a sustainable advantage). When I look at my portfolio, the customer base of the companies I've been investing in included only a very small portion of dot bombs, yet my stocks have fallen dramatically. I don't believe the failure of the dot coms explains very much. But we should give Moore & Gang the credit for predicting their failure. --Mike Buckley

To: chaz who wrote (47183)	9/27/2001 11:47:29 PM
From: tekboy	Respond to of 54805

We've been myoptic.... I've checked. There's not further damage being done to Buckley's spell checker in this post. hopefully your decision to go short will be proven wrong as quickly... tekboy/Ares@don'trelyonamachinetodoaman'sjob.hee

To: chaz who wrote (47183)	9/28/2001 4:11:27 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Hi chaz - I happen to agree very much with Mucho Maas on this one. Perhaps you [plural/thread] aren't running folks off. But then why do opinions that surface so readily on other threads show themselves so rarely here? Until recently I have been refusing invitations to post over here. Because having lurked almost since inception it was clear to me that the thread would not appreciate what I had to offer. I honestly thought I had made a mistake in doing so when I finally relented. And through that process I have learned that calling a spade "one of those cards that isn't a heart" is sometimes much, much safer. You asked: "I don't know of anyone who was warning us in March that our capital was so much at risk.". Does it need to go back to March? Because while I was learning how to adjust everyone's sound cards so that my tone was not irritating, I recall one poster put up a basket of stocks. And I captured the prices on that day. And on average since then they have been cut in half. Since July of this year. But if it's warnings in March you want, well, here's a topical post: Message 13290655 It seems this very question is on everyone's minds right now. Imagine if we'd explored it back then instead of now. I'm not criticizing. Indeed, you yourself posted Mar 30 2000 some reasoning why you didn't hold a stock (unsustainable growth rate), and yet the replies were to refute your argument. Which went quietly to bed. As that stock price was more than five times what it sells for today. Sadly, it doesn't appear that anyone was listening. To what people would only dare whisper. Not surprising few people heard. But it seems that time has passed and exogenous events have made a difference. This is brilliant insight: We held when it was really stupid. We held when not many of us would have bought more because of price/value...and that should have been our "sell" signal. And if only we could quantify the metric of "because of price/value... John.