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: Mike Buckley who wrote (48698)	11/8/2001 10:29:08 AM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Mike: Re: <<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.>> OK, then it is crucial that those specific companies be identified. Does it matter whether there are 3, 5, 8, or 12 and if so which companies are they? It seems unclear what Geoff's list consists of specifically, what about yours? Reaching a consensus on this thread among people who try to focus on the "to be or not to be" of gorillaness has been difficult. While one person can certainly make a list, is that enough? And is this "enough diversity" for a 6 year old child and a 70 year old man, for those starting a portfolio and those who have had years of investing experience? Is this a one size fits all approach? I for one am highly skeptical that "existing gorillas" alone are sufficient diversification for anyone - let alone "most portfolios". Best as always. Cha2

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (48698)	11/8/2001 11:08:39 AM
From: paul_philp	Respond to of 54805

Mike, I agree that his point about existing gorillas is a good one to make. However, his point about this being a bear trap and his comments about portfolio structure seem to be 'practicing without a license' (to steal a Maubossin saying). But hey, you are always defending the guy. <VBG> Paul

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (48698)	11/8/2001 6:05:04 PM
From: SOROS	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

TRYING TO FIND AN ANSWER I've looked at this from every angle, and I still scratch my head. My only answer on a basic level is greed and some constant short covering, but still I don't get it. I have seen no one offer a plausible explanation for these stocks to remain anywhere close to these levels. Do you know anything about any of these individual companies and what could possibly justify these prices? Are any of them going to have such an uptick in business that the PEs would even come down to historically HIGH levels? What kind of idiocy is this? I can see the "don't fight the trend" kind of reasoning, but this is getting ridiculous, is it not? Do any of these companies have some lock on a technology that is a sure thing that will bring them huge revenues ANYTIME SOON? I suspect I will never get a satisfactory answer. The "analysts" on TV never say jack squat. They tap dance around why the market should be bought, but say nothing to answer the obvious problems. Look at the first group, and tell me what they have so special and WHEN it should pay off if you know. When will they actually have earnings -- that is REAL earnings -- not pro forma, investment income, write off BS! Then the 2nd group -- when will they have such an uptick in earnings or reduction in costs to bring their PEs down? Is everyone waiting on another quarter to see if business is returning? They waited on the 2nd quarter, then made excuses and waited on the 3rd, made excuses, the 4th was for sure, and now we're on to 2002. Why are people willing to hold a stock with a PE of 100 if it is not coming down for 2-3 years at least and may actually get worse? I think games rule the day. Only in the past 2-3 years would anyone have held these stocks this long or certainly no one would have bought them at these levels. Am I missing something here? I stand ready to be shown I am a raving lunatic and idiot. Thank you. finance.yahoo.com finance.yahoo.com