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: RobertHChaney who wrote (47395)	10/2/2001 1:52:34 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

Robert, One limiting factor of the Gorilla Game is that the TALC assumes a linear progression through various states and stages (early market, chasm, bowling alley, tornado, mainstreet, post-mainstreet). There is no category for a period of lower or falling demand. Nor is there anyway to know what impact this period will have. Do tornadoes restart? Do bowling alley markets go back to the chasm? I do agree that companies with the strongest CAP and balance sheet will have a good likelihood of thriving after the walk through the desert. I think Intel, Microsoft, Siebel, Qualcomm are positioned well post-recovery. I don't know about Cisco and I don't like Oracle at all. Paul

To: RobertHChaney who wrote (47395)	10/2/2001 2:21:22 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Robert, It has been a long time (more than a year) since I followed Moore's listserve. In its relatively early days, Moore often wrote that Gorilla Gaming as an investment process had yet to be tested (real time) in a bear market. I always inferred from his comments about that that he was open minded to tweaking things if a bear market provided reasons to do so. Frankly, I'd like to see the next revision of the book postponed until we have a clear end to the bear market and a clear end to a slower growing or recessionary economy. I think once the cycles in the economy and the market have reversed, there will be a lot more to learn from the bear market. That's why I'll be fascinated to see what conclusions Moore draws and if they are so fundamental that he decides to change the 10 rules of Gorilla Gaming. --Mike Buckley

To: RobertHChaney who wrote (47395)	10/2/2001 2:48:08 PM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

OK, but they still predominantly analyze bull market periods. Well, I would say that Moore's experience base is rather deeper than that, but the main point is that the vast bulk of the thrust of his books has nothing to do with the market at all, bull or bear. Only GG "deviates" into the investment consequences of these patterns. I think most of us Moore fans have recognized for some time that the non-investment core perspective which Moore has provided us is much more developed and dependable for our analysis of companies, their products, and their market, i.e., analysis we want to do in choosing companies for investment, than are any investment specifics in GG. In fact, we have advocated a number of revisions to the investment component long before the blood bath began.

To: RobertHChaney who wrote (47395)	10/2/2001 3:10:45 PM
From: Pirah Naman	Respond to of 54805

Robert: GG is one of the best books I have ever read. However, parts of the strategy appear to have failed the big new test applied by the current bear market. I think it may be early to make that call. If the Gs - which is what the strategy would have people invested in at the time of the crash - come out worse than other tech companies post-crash, then it will have failed. Until then, all we are seeing is that at times, all tech stocks get hammered. I do think the book would have been better if the authors had restricted themselves to picking technology winners and not dabbled at all in valuation. Their dabbling at (not really in) valuation has been the cause of most criticism and was probably the least productive part of the book. Since then, Moore has been the most public of the three and the impression I have gotten from his post-book writings is that he isn't very attuned to valuation issues. Johnson has been less public perhaps, but he has made some ridiculous valuation suggestions. Kippola has been silent as far as I can tell (he must be the smart one G). - Pirah