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: paul_philp who wrote (48692)	11/8/2001 9:33:20 AM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 54805

paul: Chuckle. Yes, there is material to annoy many here, but also an interesting indication of how Geoff Moore is seemingly trying to learn and adjust his thinking. For those who like to take Geoff at face value, a vital fact to determine as a basis for action is which companies does Geoff consider are "existing gorillas". Any idea which companies are on his list right now? For me for example I would be curious if Qualcomm qualifies - again not in the real world were it does, but if it does in Geoff's current thinking. Best. Cha2 PS As for the general timing point, he seems to be merely reflecting an emerging consensus which appears to be increasingly reflected in the market itself.

To: paul_philp who wrote (48692)	11/8/2001 9:41:06 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 54805

Paul, With the exception of one point, I don't have any problem with Moore's post. When he mentions a "long long run of Gorilla appreciation," that comes painfully close to the objectionable axiom that gorillas are always undervalued. In sum, while it is always nice to look for new gorillas, my bet is that the existing gorillas provide enough diversity and opportunity for most portfolios. I think that's a critically important observation. --Mike Buckley

To: paul_philp who wrote (48692)	11/8/2001 10:00:34 AM
From: JHP	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

>>what older wiser heads like to call a bear trap>> thats what you get for listening to a foolish child in academia. The real world ate his and your lunch! regards john

To: paul_philp who wrote (48692)	11/8/2001 1:40:30 PM
From: Uncle Frank	Respond to of 54805

>> There should be enough in this post by Geoff Moore to annoy everybody. <LOL> It's pretty clear by now that Geoff, while not claiming to be a market mechanic, isn't afraid to voice his opinions. If someone has the dates of his earlier advisories, it would be interesting to match them with the ensuing market movements. I seem to remember him urging caution about overvaluation in y2k, and recommending cash as the better alternative earlier this year. >> my bet is that the existing gorillas provide enough diversity and opportunity for most portfolios. Having always favored established Gorillas, I'm in agreement. When the economy turns, the Silverbacks will provide more than adequate returns. Thanks for posting Geoff's latest thoughts. They didn't annoy me at all :-). uf

To: paul_philp who wrote (48692)	11/8/2001 2:54:34 PM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 54805

Paul: Geoff makes 3 primary points as I read your post of his post. <<this is near the beginning of a long long run of gradual gorilla appreciation.>> A timing point combined with the idea that gorilla appreciation will be a long long run. << Downturns discriminate against disruptive innovations, so as the economy recovers, I would argue circumstances add even more to the gorilla's natural long-term advantages.>> Current circumstances add to the gorilla's advantages. <<In sum, while it is always nice to look for new gorillas, my bet is that the existing gorillas provide enough diversity and opportunity for most portfolios.>> Silverbacks are enough diversity for "most portfolios". Just to be clear, a difficult task at best. The first is a matter of judgement. For example Mike seems to see danger in it. The second seems sensible and practically self evident. If the third is taken on its face as stated, it seems absurd as advice and extremely hazadous to a wide range of investors' health - "enough diversity" - no way, no how. Curious whose portfolio here conforms to that. (All just my reading and just my view) Best. Cha2