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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: smolejv@gmx.net who wrote (21119)	7/10/2002 8:07:57 PM
From: EL KABONG!!!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Dolinar Janko, When reading the articles regarding Mr. Flynn, at some points I actually felt some degree of pity for him. But in the final analysis, I guess he may not be deserving of pity. He could have gotten out at the top, but he didn't. Then he was fortunate enough to have a secondary rally in his stocks, and he could have at least taken a little something off of the table, but he didn't. So, from my perspective, he has no one to blame but himself. I kept trying to think of Mr. Flynn as a typical Joe Six-Pack or Billy Joe Gunrack, but the image just doesn't seem to fit. Perhaps Floyd the Barber (from the old Andy Griffith Show) is more apropos, but somehow I think Mr. Flynn is a bit more sophisticated than that. One thing that amazes me is his steadfast belief in technology stocks, in particular technologies that he likely doesn't use and most certainly doesn't understand. I know that in my investments, I take great pains to thoroughly understand the business plan, the business model and the company's financials long before I plunk down a single dollar. I am incredulous that not only did he plunk down his own money with a minimal understanding of the underlying businesses, he actually persuaded his friends and customers to do the same. So when the stocks went down, as stocks are sometimes prone to do, not only did the losses affect his own portfolio, it has undoubtedly affected his relationships with his friends, his customers and perhaps his wife. And another item that grabbed my attention was his pointing the finger of guilt at other people and incidents that were the cause of his portfolio's decline. Other than admitting that he had "all his eggs in one basket", which was presented not as a risk, but sort of like "the way it is", he currently seems to accept no personal responsibility for his losses. From my perspective, one might say he won the lottery by having a portfolio with a net value somewhere in excess of $800K, but he failed to recognize that as such. Instead, he set a dollar limit as the point where he would get out. What was he thinking? Surely he must of recognized that if everyone were using that strategy, that ultimately the markets would decline, and the last one out loses, sort of like the children's game of musical chairs. In my book, that is greed, pure and simple, but he doesn't see it as such because he's not a wealthy man. I think he views greed as being in the purview of the wealthy, and not something that the little guy is guilty of. He likely views it as "getting ahead", but certainly not greed. I wonder how many other little guys set a dollar amount where they would leave the market, rather than taking what the markets gave them... KJC