SI
SI
Advertise on SI

 Strategies & Market Trends | Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Eric L who wrote (48922)11/14/2001 11:25:25 PM
From: Mike Buckley   of 54800
 
Eric,

Qualcomm has NO architectural control of the WCDMA air interface, whatsoever ... or the other air interfaces that are part of UMTS, or UMTS.

Does any company have that control? The reason I ask is because I believe the non-cdmaOne/CDMA2000 sectors are royalty games. If I'm right, neither Qualcomm nor any company could be the chimp you feel Qualcomm is.

--Mike Buckley

P. S. Hah! I surprised Paul by changing my standard insert. Actually, I'm just reviving an old one that I stopped harping about because nobody ever paid any attention to it. :)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Pirah Naman who wrote (48932)11/14/2001 11:25:49 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön   of 54800
 
This is not the thread for debating about indexing and academic studies.

whatever, you shouldn't have brought it up then.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (48931)11/14/2001 11:27:48 PM
From: EnricoPalazzo   of 54800
 
It is interesting that indexing has a lot of fans in academia, and few on the Street. this is because the Street wants to manage your money for you, or sell you information, so the idea that the information is already to a large part priced in is anathema. in contrast, academics, whatever their faults may be, are not trying to sign me up for a wrap account with a fat fee.

That's, um, one interpretation. Another interpretation is that academics are obsessed with a theory that has been repudiated in a variety of ways. The theory says, more or less: my former classmates who went to Wall Street and mades tons of money are full of crap. I'm not jealous; I'm smarter than them. You say that some investors (like Warren Buffett) have proven successful far beyond what is statistically reasonable given an efficient market? Oh yeah, well, um... mumble mumble mumble.

I have a decent amount of exposure to academic finance; enough to think very little of most practitioners, and much less of the theory. The fact that beta as a proxy for risk and a predictor of return is still widely accepted in academic finance circles should tell you all you need to know. Hell, marxism has fallen out of favor more quickly.

Sorry, you touched a sore point ;)

ardethan@recoveringecmajor.edu

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Uncle Frank who started this subject11/15/2001 12:00:06 AM
From: paul_philp   of 54800
 
Henry Blodget to Leave Merrill Lynch
nytimes.com 
By PATRICK McGEEHAN

enry Blodget, the fair-haired stock analyst who became a symbol of the Internet mania that enriched some investors but ultimately cost many others dearly, is giving up the business of publicly rating stocks.

Late Wednesday, he confirmed that he had accepted a buyout offer that his firm, Merrill Lynch (news/quote), extended to about 50,000 employees this month.

"It just seemed like a good time to pursue the next thing," Mr. Blodget said.

Mr. Blodget, 35, gained fame among American investors after correctly predicting in 1998 that the share price of Amazon.com (news/quote) would soar to $400. But that fame turned to infamy as Amazon and many others among the Internet stocks he recommended plunged. Several companies that Mr. Blodget praised in published reports and television interviews, including Pets.com, a unit of IPET Holdings (news/quote), and eToys, failed before ever turning a profit.

Mr. Blodget, a year ago the top- ranked Internet analyst in the influential annual survey by Institutional Investor magazine, fell to a No. 3 ranking this year, and some investors said his stock calls had less resonance in the market.

But Deepak Raj, a managing director who oversees domestic stock research at Merrill, said Mr. Blodget's resignation was not a result of pressure from Merrill's clients or management.

"This is a lifestyle decision for Henry," he said, adding that Mr. Blodget was "a major asset to Merrill Lynch" and would be missed.

After the Internet stock bubble burst, the performance of analysts became the subject of investors' recriminations and securities regulators' scrutiny. Some critics said analysts colored their advice to help their firms win companies' investment banking business; others complained that analysts had become credulous enablers of market madness.





Frances Roberts for The New York Times
Henry Blodget, 35, has decided to accept one of the 50,000 buyouts offered by Merrill Lynch.





Get Stock Quotes
Look Up Symbols



Portfolio | Company Research
U.S. Markets | Int. Markets
Mutual Funds | Bank Rates
Commodities & Currencies













Click here to order Reprints or
Permissions of this Article
"Henry was typical of the era," said Eric Von der Porten, a hedge- fund manager at Leeward Investments in San Carlos, Calif., who has complained to regulators about Mr. Blodget's methods.

"I rarely saw much questioning of the company's line," he added.

Mr. Blodget, who was married last month, said he planned to spend the next three to six months writing a book for Random House about the Internet stock bubble, then pursue a job at a hedge fund or money management firm.

He said that he would use the book to explain, but not to defend, what happened with Internet stocks and the analysis of them in the last few years.

He had always told investors that Internet stocks carried a high degree of risk, Mr. Blodget said, and that conservative investors should not own them.

"One of the things that happened at the end of the bubble is people forgot about what the downside was, and that's why a lot of people got hurt," he said. "If you go back to any period of time where markets have crashed, it is a messy affair afterward."

Investors, he added, tend to claim that they did not know what they had gotten into.

Merrill and several other firms announced policy changes this year in an attempt to restore confidence in the opinions they present as objective research. Firms, for example, have required analysts to disclose their own stockholdings or have prohibited them from buying shares in companies they follow. The firms also took steps to highlight their investment banking relationships with the companies they follow.

Mr. Blodget's severance package is estimated to be worth about $2 million, but he declined to comment on that.

Earlier this year, Merrill paid an undisclosed amount to settle an arbitration complaint filed by a customer who contended that he had bought shares of InfoSpace (news/quote), an online content provider, on Mr. Blodget's recommendation. The customer, Debases Kanjilal, contended that Mr. Blodget's opinion was colored by Merrill's desire to earn investment banking fees from InfoSpace.

Merrill disputed that contention and continued to support Mr. Blodget until the end — assigning him, for example, to cover Microsoft (news/quote), one of the world's most widely held stocks.

"We settled solely to avoid the time and distraction of protracted litigation," Mr. Raj said. "Henry's integrity is beyond reproach."

Mr. Raj said Mr. Blodget would stay on at Merrill until the end of the year while the firm decides how to replace him. The only better-known Internet analyst, Mary Meeker — once called the "Queen of the Net" — continues to follow the sector for Morgan Stanley.

Mr. Blodget was once an aspiring journalist — he was a fact checker for Harper's magazine in 1984 — with a history degree from Yale University and no degrees in business. He started out on Wall Street as a junior analyst at CIBC Oppenheimer and was following Internet stocks for that firm in December 1998 when he delivered his career-making $400 call on Amazon.com's stock. Amazon, an online bookseller then considered to epitomize the promise of e- commerce, was selling for $240 a share.

Jonathan Cohen, Merrill's Internet analyst at the time, had just predicted that Amazon could fall to $50. Investors bought the obscure Mr. Blodget's bullish argument and quickly bid the stock past his $400 peg.

Several weeks later, Mr. Cohen had left Merrill, and Mr. Blodget had his job.

Through all of 1999 and well into last year, Mr. Blodget advised investors to buy virtually every stock he covered. Boyishly handsome with a charmingly casual manner, he became a fixture on CNBC and in the financial press, making the case for companies that were losing lots of money selling diapers or dog food over the Internet.

But after the Internet stock bubble burst, Mr. Blodget's star began to dim. The list of stocks he covered, which had exceeded 20, declined to several as some filed for bankruptcy protection and others fell as low as $1.

As a sign of Mr. Blodget's diminished influence, Mr. Von der Porten cited Mr. Blodget's recent change of heart on Amazon. On Oct. 17, Mr. Blodget lowered his short-term rating on the stock to "neutral" from "accumulate" — meaning he expected it to rise less than 10 percent.

There was no noticeable reaction from investors, Mr. Von der Porten said.

Robert Olstein, who manages the $1 billion Olstein Financial Alert fund in Purchase, N.Y., called Mr. Blodget's departure the belated end of an era on Wall Street in which "all of these great salesmen and great storytellers rose to the top."

"Blodget had good concepts, but the numbers didn't work," Mr. Olstein said. "This is a numbers business as well as a concepts business."

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (48926)11/15/2001 12:45:46 AM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh   of 54800
 
GG is marketed as a method to get rich by investing

If you had actually paid any attention at all to what is said on this thread, you would not have a book jacket view of what the Gorilla Game was all about.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (48931)11/15/2001 12:49:35 AM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh   of 54800
 
Efficient Market Theory

Somehow, it is hard to imagine that anyone would believe this after the last couple of years.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Wyätt Gwyön who wrote (48926)11/15/2001 1:08:38 AM
From: Bruce Brown   of 54800
 
as far as i can see, GG is marketed as a method to get rich by investing. the inside jacket cover tells you how you could've made millions of this stock and that. however, i agree that it is not a very good method for finding investments since it ignores valuation issues.

Mucho,

Sometimes I have to question if you have even read the entire two editions - not to mention "Tornado" and "Chasm" among others.

BB

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Pirah Naman who wrote (48917)11/15/2001 1:35:35 AM
From: tekboy   of 54800
 
I think people in general are expecting too much from GGing. It is an analytic method to reduce company specific risks when investing in a certain industry. It isn't a stand alone formula for investing success. People who rely on it exclusively are adding risk; people who judge it as a stand alone formula are constructing a straw man argument.

I like that--humble, chastened, but still somewhat defiantly proud. If Fred were still doing the FAQ, I'd nominate that for inclusion.

tekboy/Ares@oh,andImightsuggestwefinallytakeoutthe'surething'reference.ggg

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (48933)11/15/2001 1:40:48 AM
From: Eric L   of 54800
 
--Mike Buckley,

<< architectural control of the WCDMA air interface ... Does any company have that control? >>

No.

Open committee-based architecture and the open standards that result are designed to avoid any company having proprietary control.

<< I believe the non-cdmaOne/CDMA2000 sectors are royalty games. >>

I concur.

The broad wireless industry is a royalty game.

Take a little (12% to 15% depending on metric applied - <2% if you look at Qualcomm's revenue) niche of the industry as we have conveniently done, and in the process trapped ourselves to a degree. We have created a local gorilla.

<< If I'm right >>

I'm not sure that you are ever right and in this case I'm not sure you are correct either ... but it's late ... and what hole did you suddenly pop out of anyway?

... and then again you could be correct.

<< neither Qualcomm nor any company could be the chimp you feel Qualcomm is >>

Well, they are not a Prince even though they are a market challenger.

They certainly aspire to be the gorilla of wireless or at least the gorilla of CDMA, and they have a batch of companies much larger than they are that aren't about to let em be the gorilla of either.

This leaves them as the gorilla of a niche market within a much larger market that was gorilla-less in its first tornado and is likely to be in its next.

I'll sleep on it.

In the interim I happen to think that unless cdma2000 becomes the dominant technology in the pending tornado they fit the characteristics of a chimp better than the characteristics of any other critter in the zoo or the palace.

... but for the moment I'll say that your partially correct ... maybe.

Good Night, --Mike Buckley.

- Eric -

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: tekboy who wrote (48856)11/15/2001 2:32:15 AM
From: Uncle Frank   of 54800
 
>> I've only now had a chance to catch up on the last several days' worth of posts here. Given the recent angst about thread direction, interestingly, what I found (apart from the odd flaming interruption) was heartening

Weekends are usually mellow. Weekdays are a bit less heartening.

uf

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.