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: Stock Farmer who wrote (47259)	9/29/2001 3:46:08 AM
From: chaz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

John: I'm one of your fans, observing (though I mostly kept it to myself) some time ago during your first encounters here that what you had to say was worth hearing. Perhaps I have a thicker skin than I need, or it may be that I was not sensitive enough to how your earlier were affecting others, since none of them were directed at me. Personally, I think you've gotten by that period and hope you'll stick with us. On responsibility: I will stand up and take my own blame. When I asked who was telling us to duck and cover, I was not trying to shed blame or place it elsewhere. I simply didn't know where else to look. I didn't know where other opinions were being expressed. Like right now. There will be a time when the market turns...someone will have it nailed. I'd like to know now who that someone is. IOW...where is the guy or gal who is smarter than me, and what are they saying, and am I understanding it. I am sure there are many who fit that description. For example, your post on CSCO. I gathered that your position is that the stock is best avoided now because so much of the company's cash position has been propped up by paid-in capital from option holders. With those now being far less valuable, CSCO's cash position will erode should sales take further tumbles. Have I got that right? BTW, John, that analysis is one that I would have never had the idea to do. I've saved it, as an example to use another day. Thanks. On Whispering: Boy, were we wearing blinders, and not just us. Many stock threads were just as overly bullish as we were, and we had a bible as our cover. I think it still valid, that in another day it's lessons will stand. I hope however that all of us can broaden our investment attitudes to include some macro views. On Stops: TMF (the book) advised use of stops. If I recall, their number was 8 per cent. That would have made room for lots of re entry points, and enough tax headaches to satisfy even our most patriotic souls. I think we'd all be richer for it. Chaz

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (47259)	9/29/2001 1:01:24 PM
From: RobertHChaney	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 54805

Regarding "hearing" contrarian indicators. My experience has shown me that no one can see every major change that occurs in markets, trends, industries, niches, technologies or companies. And, only a small number of other people will actually call any major change correctly. Once the majority can see it - its way too late. And, once everyone can see it, its probably the end of that trend reversal. This creates interesting problems and makes the "right temperament" a key to truly hearing and objectively considering the contrarian opinion. In the past, I have missed some major changes that have taken place primarily because of one or more of the following issues: 1) my over-confidence in my concept; 2) not curious enough to actively and constantly seek out dissenting opinions; 3) could not believe any concept that went against my own; 4) allowed my financial stake to overly bias my thinking; 5) I didn't like they particular way in which a dissenting opinion was delivered. All of this has lead me to believe that investing requires balanced temperament. You must have a core confidence in your fundamental investment approach. But, looking for major changes requires a "check your ego at the door" process, because otherwise, it is very easy to miss a key indicator. On the other hand, being a full-time contrarian is problematic as well. History has shown that the market is correct much of the time, which will defeat an always contrarian approach. However, the masses will only be right for reasonable periods of time, and then will typically get carried away with momentum. So, then, one must instinctively be looking for and thinking about ideas that dissent from the majority. One of the reasons I find investing so fascinating is because it is so complex and requires so much experience, self analysis, improvement and maturation. Robert

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (47259)	9/29/2001 2:39:58 PM
From: que seria	Respond to of 54805

John: Nice CSCO analysis, thanks, although I'm out. You do make a very good point (in the form of a question) about the community. You correctly do not make that point about the book. "Manual" is a telling usage, but it is the thread's. You ask: Did you mean that the same forces responsible for binding the focus to the fm are responsible for blinding us to hazards? You didn't ask me, but I'll answer: partly yes, except I don't think anyone was blinded. There is a natural tendency among many if not most people, especially in a thriving community, to not want to initiate or participate in discussions about threats to their own success and to the community's spirit. Greed and fear alternately rule in the markets--no reason to believe this thread's participants would be exempt from that on the whole. I think one key for committed GG investors going forward is to recognize that the book does not (1) dictate the percentage of the portfolio going into GG investing, or (2) preclude stop losses. (I always got the first right; seldom the second). I've seen enough on this thread, and there was more than enough in the financial media, to prevent almost anyone running his own money from being able to say he did so blind to risk. Mike Buckley's and others' points about valuation were always there, even if sentiment was against them. As well, where you bought made a huge difference in how sanguine you could be about selling, at least for capital preservation. Many missed that truth. The community microclimate may have nurtured people's view that they could grow their portolios to the skies, but I think nearly everyone made personal choices about where to strike the greed/fear balance. I look back on my many bad choices (in particular, to hold tech positions no matter the price, except for tax losses) and know that my error was never being blind as I ignored valuation. It was being greedy in the face of my knowledge. Few on this board discussed percentages committed to other sectors, and appropriately so, given the focus. But the constant references to one's "portfolio" should not obscure the fact that many readers/posters allocate significant portions of their portfolios elsewhere than high tech. Tech losses are much more easily born, and thus GG investing with one's assigned percentage of the portfolio is easier, when picking one or two other sectors in which to spread positions. For example, as sure as it is that high tech will remain crucial to the US economy, it is even surer that energy will. The last five years have offered constant opportunities to play that cycle, which is far more predictable than high tech, often just as wild, and offered plenty of profit in the last two years (long, then short, and soon long again). Luck to all in these troubled times.