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: Jurgis Bekepuris who wrote (54623)	11/4/2003 6:05:36 PM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh	Respond to of 54805

My interest in "digging" is dependent on the purpose (not that I have the time, anyway, mind you!). If the purpose is to say "here is a company that someone called a gorilla and it failed before its appointed time, hah, hah" then I am not at all interested ... not because I want to ignore evidence, but simply because I don't relate to Moore in that way in the first place. On the other hand, if the purpose is to examine why a company which seemed gorilla-like managed to not to maintain its advantage in the way that Moore would lead us to expect, then that could be valuable. To me, anyway, the goal here is understanding, not some simple rule of "pick X". For example, Moore says that Gorillas are less needy of having top quality management than companies which do not have the gorilla advantage. This does not mean that a CEO of a Gorilla can't be such a flaming, egocentric idiot that he squanders his advantage to follow personal whims. Similarly, from Moore we expect a company which becomes a Gorilla to be able to leverage this position by moving into new markets, thus extending the breadth and depth of their hold. But, suppose there aren't any ripe, related markets there for them to exploit or that they at least don't think of them and, instead, go into markets which are already heavily populated. And look at the arguments we have had about Intel and whether it deserves to be called a gorilla because it had to share its control of its IP with AMD. Does anyone question that their dominance would be even greater if they hadn't had to do that? But, despite this, Intel has been calling the shots in a big, big sector for a long, long time, i.e., behaving like a gorilla and getting away with it, despite this supposed flaw in its perfection. Understanding these things and how they are likely to impact the long term future of a company is interesting. Niggling over definitions and whether or not someone said something wrong once is not.