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: Bruce Brown who wrote (49504)	12/15/2001 10:48:31 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Bruce, the dialogue has deteriorated considerably. Which is unfortunate. Just because I see TALC as [not the most important] consideration in an investment decision does not mean I dismiss it entirely. So you are preaching to the choir about TALC having some importance. Ranting, even. BUT: if the market has priced in the prospects of a company becoming more fast growing and more profitable than turns out to be the case, then investment is not profitable. If the market has not, then the investment will be profitable. Period. There's not much more to it than that. The rest is window dressing and post-lengthening verbiage, which seems to turn on this point: JS: Because I thought the entire game was about investing and securing disproportionate returns compared to the alternatives. BB: So you join Mucho and others in mocking the jacket cover material without specific reference to the internal criteria found between the covers? [plus rant] Mocking? No. I was quite serious. Would you suggest that the Gorilla Game is not a methodology for technology investment? Or that if it is, it is intended to be inferior (or at least equivalent) to other strategies when it comes to securing return on investment? If not, then it is about investing and securing disproportionate returns compared to the alternatives!!! Mocking? No, you have me wrong. I was merely identifying purpose. From which to measure primacy and importance. But if I have the purpose wrong, then I will prioritize incorrectly. John P.S. Having used the words "cool" and "poppycock" here: Message 16796050 are you now retiring to the mudge thread?

To: Bruce Brown who wrote (49504)	12/15/2001 11:23:57 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Respond to of 54805

Perhaps you could explain to me why the concept of the technology adoption life cycle is not a sufficient reason where one would start to even begin to think about any sort of investment in FC, GE, iSCSI, etc... in the first place. EDIT: Remember: my criteria was "necessary and sufficient". It was you who asserted that TALC is the essential part. Sure we can start with TALC. But we can start at any number of other places too. One can start to even begin to think about any sort of investment in FC by having read Covey's book and thinking "hey, this makes sense". Or shorting it having thought "Hmmm... this guy's hype is bound to go out of favor one of these days". Or perhaps by picking it up on a screen of stocks that appeared to be irrationally smashed in the September pounding, at $2 versus it's $6 current price. Hardly TALC! One can start to even begin to think about any sort of investment in GE by scanning stocks that have a yield higher than 1% and a low beta. Or having looked at the brand label fifteen times per day. Or in thinking "GE hasn't been this low in a long time". And so on. A whole host of reasons Bruce. Not all of them related to Technology Adoption Life Cycle, but all of them related to an anticipation of profit. John