To: Michael Burry who wrote (808 ) 12/27/1998 3:00:00 PM From: Chuzzlewit Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 4691
Mike, I don't think you need to spot individual winners in every case, or even the majority of cases. That is the rationale for holding basket of stocks. So your comment about consistency is off base when it comes to these companies. I don't invest in biotechnology for a variety of reasons, but I think there is an interesting parallel to be drawn. You have a series of small companies trying to discover and engineer a number of pharmaceuticals which will be efficacious in treating various illnesses. There is no guarantee that any particular company will be a winner (nor for that matter than any of them will be a winner), but I'd be willing to bet that if you held a basket of a couple of dozen or so of those stock you will end up holding a couple of monster winners. None of us outsiders knows enough to spot which individual company will emerge from the fray, but I am certain that some of them will, and those lucky enough to be shareholders in those companies will make fortunes. Things are considerably clearer in telecommunications and computers. You don't need to hold dozens of stocks have some big winners. You observed But I don't see how the individual investor can know what is necessary to know in growth stocks in a rabid bull. Isn't that why you are on SI? If you look at thread of companies like CSCO and COMS and ASND you will find many engineers who are very familiar with the products (warts and all) who are more than willing to share their insights with those of us (like myself) who are technologically challenged. You can also get a lot of intelligence that the average passive investor cannot get. For example, on the Seagate thread it became apparent that there was trouble ahead when some posters were reporting that Asian plants were decreasing their shifts and "temporarily" closing plants. That was a harbinger of the official acknowledgement by dd mfg companies that there was a glut of product. We know that these emerging technologies depend on chips, and that these chips need to be designed, and fabs built. Don't companies emerged in that kind of supporting technology rate a look? We know that there is a rapid convergence of telecommunications technologies. How about the companies providing the infrastructure for that buildout? I share you sentiments about the self-serving nature of IR, and the arrogant attitude that the small investor be damned. But this criticism is just as true for companies like GM and KO as it is for NETA. Sorry if I'm rambling, but I think that these are issues that are worth of a general discussion. Happy New Year, TTFN, CTC