Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (12) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: xerohype Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 8764  
Subject: Comparing Fisher to GG (very long) Date: 10/1/2000 2:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 74
Comparing Fisher's Principles to The Gorilla Game

by xerohype

A few weeks ago I had the pleasure to read Philip Fisher's Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (heretofore referred to as CSUP). Fisher's investment philosophy fits very well with my philosophy of picking the very best companies and holding them for a long time. I think that as Gorilla Gamers we can use some of Fisher's principles as part of our arsenal for evaluating potential Gorillas. Fisher really studies the aspects of businesses that deal with good execution, especially analyzing the management of a company. A Gorilla such as PSFT that stumbles may have been recognized earlier through the application of Fisher's points. Microsoft has failed in some very key Fisher points, most notably when Bill Gates testified in the antitrust trial. A Gorilla that can't execute properly will be weakened, and a King that doesn't execute will be brought down in a big hurry by one or more Princes in its royalty game.

I recently posted a series of original articles in the KP board dealing with LTBH investing. In those articles I discuss LTBH elements from the Gorilla Game and also from Fisher's writings.

LTBH Series Introduction
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13372174

LTBH I: Why LTBH?
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13372291

LTBH II: Selecting LTBH stocks
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13372309

LTBH III: Jumping into the Market
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13372339

LTBH IV: Monitoring LTBH stocks
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13372374

LTBH V: When to sell
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13372399

There are many elements of Foolish investing that come from Fisher's philosophy:
Hold great companies for the long term
Invest for sustained growth and expanding possibilities.
Invest in companies with excellent management.

Let's take a look at Fisher's 15 Points:

The Fifteen Points to Look for Before Buying a Common Stock

1. Does the company have products or services with sufficient market potential to make possible a sizable increase in sales for at least several years?

2. Does the management have a determination to continue to develop products or processes that will still further increase total sales potentials when the growth potentials of currently attractive product lines have largely been exploited?

3. How effective are the company's research and development efforts in relation to its size?

4. Does the company have an above-average sales organization?

5. Does the company have a worthwhile profit margin?

6. What is the company doing to maintain or improve profit margins?

7. Does the company have outstanding labor and personnel relations?

8. Does the company have outstanding executive relations?

9. Does the company have depth to its management?

10. How good are the company's cost analysis and accounting controls?

11. Are there other aspects of the business, somewhat peculiar to the industry involved, which will give the investor important clues as to how outstanding the company may be in relation to its competitors?

12. Does the company have a short-range or long-range outlook in regard to profits?

13. In the foreseeable future will the growth of the company require sufficient equity financing so that the larger number of shares then outstanding will largely cancel the existing stockholders' benefit from this anticipated growth?

14. Does the management talk freely to investors about its affairs when things are going well be "clam up" when troubles and disappointments occur?

15. Does the company have a management of unquestionable integrity?

Rubic in Grape's Fisher Kings board posts these points along with the first paragraph of their discussion:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=11610111

Mark (mlc11) does an outstanding job of summarizing Fisher's 15 points in these two great posts, that are part of an ongoing CSUP book club study by the graduates from the July RM Seminar:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13268582
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13268605

Here are some examples of recent Fisher analyses of twosome companies we are familiar with:

JDSU by Phileo
http://www.tsrec.com/jdsu-fisher.html
http://www.tsrec.com/jdsu-fisher2.html
http://www.tsrec.com/jdsu-fisher3.html

NOK by TMFMycroft
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=12780762


The whole Fisher philosophy comes down to researching the heck out of a company before you buy it, picking the very best and sticking with them for the long term (as long as those fundamentals hold) watching your gains compound to big returns.

That really jives with my personal philosophy. In page 7 of CSUP he writes: "These opportunities did not require purchasing on a particular day at the bottom of a great panic. The shares of these companies were available year after year at prices that were to make this kind of profit possible."

Fisher believes in sustainable growth, and also in companies that invest heavily in R&D to sustain that growth. These are my kind of companies, ones that look toward the future and improve all our lives with their products.

The other key subjective criteria with Fisher is that of excellent management, one that looks toward the future, not to short term earnings numbers.

We'll come back to Fisher as soon as we review some of the main concepts from The Gorilla Game.

+++++++++++++++++++++++
GG FAQ:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13091110

GG criteria (from GG FAQ):

1. Discontinuous innovation
2. Proprietary open architecture
3. High barriers to entry
4. High switching costs
5. Strong value chain formation
6. Tornado market exists or foreseeable

Ten rules of GG (from the book by Geoffrey A. Moore, Paul Johnson and Tom Kippola):

1. If the category is application software, begin buying in the bowling alley.

2. If the category is enabling hardware or software, begin buying after the tornado has formed.

3. Buy a basket comprising of all the gorilla candidates-usually at least two, sometimes three, and normally no more than four companies.

4. Hold gorilla stocks for the long term. Sell only on proven substitution threat.

5. Hold application software chimp stocks as long as they exhibit potential for further market expansion. Do not hold enabling-technology chimps.

6. Hold kings and princes lightly, selling individual stocks on a marketplace stumble and the category upon deceleration of hypergrowth.

7. Once it becomes clear to you that a company will never become a gorilla, sell its stock.

8. Money taken out of non-gorilla stocks should immediately be reinvested in the remaining gorilla candidates.

9. In a gorilla collision, hold your gorilla candidates until there has been a definitive outcome.

10. Most news has nothing to do with the gorilla game. Learn to ignore it.

+++++++++++++++++++++

mlc11 posts a variation of Fisher's points here:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13325367
This is from John Train's chapter on Fisher in The Money Masters:

Train feels that among Fisher's writings are probably about 20 points to examine, which can be grouped under 2 main categories:

Characteristics of an attractive business:

1. Growth from existing products and from new ones.
2. A high profit margin and return on capital, together with favorable trends for both.
3. Effective research.
4. A superior sales organization.
5. A leading industry position giving advantages of scale.
6. A valid "franchise"-proprietary products and services.

Qualities of management:

1. Integrity, implying conservative accounting
2. Accessibility
3. An orientation toward long-range results (if necessary at the expense of this quarter's bottom line) without equity dilution.
4. A recogntion of the pervasiveness of change
5. Excellent financial controls.
6. Multidisciplinary skills (where appropriate).
7. The special skills associated with particular industries.
8. Good personnel policies, including management training. He insists that a company must consciously and continually become a better place to work, from the executive level to union relations, and to be so perceived by its employees.

You may recognize a few of the attributes above in your favorite Gorillas. I'll just comment quickly on some of the similarities between the points above and GG.

The growth must be sustained, that means that the company has good growth from existing products and is looking for other markets in which to tornado in. High profit margins are a good measure of Gorilla power. Effective research to me means that you can take your products across the chasm to start new tornadoes (just like CSCO has done). Superior sales are key during the tornado phase of the technology product cycle, where the land grab for market share is key. Gorillas are known for having leading industry positions, they own that value chain through their proprietary architecture (their franchise so to speak) and the openness of that architecture makes it scalable. The qualities of management are key for great execution in all phases of the company's growth cycle.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Let me continue by discussing the similarities and differences between Fisher's points and GG by taking the Fifteen Points one by one. Let me caution that Fisher's points can apply to any company, while the GG is directed strictly towards technology. Of course, two of Fisher's favorite companies were Motorola (MOT) and Texas Instruments (TXN), leading technology companies to this day (though not Gorillas). The point of this exercise is not to meld the two philosophies, but to compare and contrast them in order to enhance our ability to find the best companies out there, the ones which will produce the outsized returns on our investment that we all crave and that Fisher was able to achieve during his long career as an investor.

1. Does the company have products or services with sufficient market potential to make possible a sizable increase in sales for at least several years?

This is the whole point of GG, to pick companies that have sustainable growth because they control the rights to an open proprietary architecture. A gorilla company entering its period of hypergrowth (tornado) will have many years of fat profits as it goes into Main Street.

2. Does the management have a determination to continue to develop products or processes that will still further increase total sales potentials when the growth potentials of currently attractive product lines have largely been exploited?

This actually goes towards points that Moore addresses in his new book, Living on the Fault Line (LOTFL). Mature Gorillas and Kings must be ready to enter new markets with the possibility of new tornadoes, but this is made difficult by corporate inertia. Discontinuous innovation is usually suppressed in most corporate cultures, and then a new hot startup emerges that can usurp the mature gorilla. For example, IBM taken down by MSFT and INTC. That's one of the reasons that CSCO has been so successful, it acquires companies in the pre-chasm stage and assimilates their technology (can you say Borg-like) to enter new tornadoes.

3. How effective are the company's research and development efforts in relation to its size?

This point is very important for a technology company to maintain its lead. One can either develop technology in-house such as Lucent or buy it and integrate it like CSCO. In order to enter a tornado the R&D group must be very strong, and companies that invest a great deal in R&D have usually made great investments. Moore again makes some excellent points in LOTFL and Crossing the Chasm. It's not enough to have cool R&D products, you've got to have them cross the chasm. The way to do this is to apply a bowling pin strategy by going after niche markets that are all related each successive pin will then help convince the pragmatists in the herd that they should go with your product. R&D then serves to support the sales effort by making the product work and getting it out as quickly as possible to those with broken-systems that need it.

R&D to revenues is a good objective measure to look at raw spending, but for GGers you have to look under the hood of those revenues to make sure that the R&D products are crossing the chasm into the bowling alley.

4. Does the company have an above-average sales organization?

This is critical for companies entering the tornado. The goal here is to grab as much market share as possible, thus making switching costs higher in the future. Once the market matures those customers are a lot easier to capture (they are already captive, especially for Gorilla companies). Once the tornado hits, the land grab is on, and your sales organization is critical.

5. Does the company have a worthwhile profit margin?

A telltale sign of a gorilla is high gross and net margins. They pick the sweet spot in the value chain and have all the other members take subservient spots with lower margins. Usually this translates into a light business model, heavily dependent on intellectual property.


6. What is the company doing to maintain or improve profit margins?

A gorilla has a lock on that market, it goes with owning that proprietary open architecture. Companies like MSFT, INTC and CSCO, big gorillas all are always looking for ways to increase those already fat profit margins by squeezing efficiencies out of their manufacturing or contracting out low margin tasks.

7. Does the company have outstanding labor and personnel relations?

8. Does the company have outstanding executive relations?

9. Does the company have depth to its management?

These are all important issues that have to do with management execution, a theme that is not explored by the Gorilla Game, but one that IMO is very important. You don't want any union strikes or personnel defections, so you must compensate your people very well. Also, you need to retain the best executive talent in order to execute and also have a clear plan for succession in your top executive team, that way Wall Street doesn't get nervous when your top man is set to retire. Moore makes the point in LOTFL that talent and time are your most scarce resources in this technology environment (money on the other hand is very available). Labor unrest and poor hiring practices can be fatal for a company trying to cross the chasm or come out ahead in a tornado market. No one can afford that kind of time loss or talent drain if they hope to compete well.

10. How good are the company's cost analysis and accounting controls?

ORCL is a great example of a company that has really done wonders with its cost analysis and accounting controls, using its own software to save more than a Billion $ this year alone. This will definitely affect your GAP and make your company more effective. It all comes down to execution.

11. Are there other aspects of the business, somewhat peculiar to the industry involved, which will give the investor important clues as to how outstanding the company may be in relation to its competitors?

Hmmm, let's see, how about having an open proprietary architecture, a strong value chain, high switching costs and high barriers to entry. Total domination of its industry sector may give us a clue. This is where the gorilla really shines.

12. Does the company have a short-range or long-range outlook in regard to profits?

This is key for companies aspiring to be gorillas or wanting to enter new tornadoes. Mature companies will squelch discontinuous innovation (DI) within their own R&D departments, and thus their startup competitors, the ones embracing DI will rise up and eat their lunch. Long range to me means that you fix your problems as soon as possible even if you take a short term hit in earnings (LU should be the poster child in how not to do this). LOTFL has some great points regarding how companies can nurture DI to help it cross the chasm. Mindless layoffs don't cut it, you need to shed context operations (ones that don't add to your ability to generate future profits by extending your CAP), and concentrate on the core operations.

13. In the foreseeable future will the growth of the company require sufficient equity financing so that the larger number of shares then outstanding will largely cancel the existing stockholders' benefit from this anticipated growth?

The real question here is whether you can fund future growth well with existing resources without diluting shareholders equity. As long as the capital is used to acquire R&D that leads to future tornadoes, this should not be a problem. Large increases in numbers of shares outstanding should be monitored by all investors. This is more of an issue for companies in Main Street. For companies in the tornado or trying to cross the chasm the survival of the company depends on getting the product to market first (early and ugly is fine), so that share dilution should not be the main concern, rather winning market share is of paramount importance.

14. Does the management talk freely to investors about its affairs when things are going well but "clam up" when troubles and disappointments occur?

That's a critical question, especially when a Gorilla Collision occurs or when a discontinuous innovation threatens an established Gorilla. The more information we get from management the more power we have as investors.

15. Does the company have a management of unquestionable integrity?

This is a key point that is not discussed in GG much. You may be able to attribute some of Microsoft's "caged gorilla" status by the way management has acted during the antitrust trial and even before that. I'm pretty sure that SEC investigations and DOJ suits can bring to their knees even the most powerful gorillas. Just contrast the way that INTC and MSFT have handled their antitrust problems.

The Gorilla Game does a great job explaining the way that technology companies come to dominate their markets (when they become gorillas), but Fisher's work can be used to gauge how well that gorilla will execute. Execution can affect both GAP and CAP, therefore market cap.

The strategies for handling buying stocks are a little different for both methods. Fisher is a big proponent of researching as much as possible a company, and then keeping it long term if it meets the fifteen points. For GG, one buys at the beginning of a tornado a basket of companies in that sector, consolidating into the Gorilla. Fisher will try to time the market, buying during corrections (such as with times of war) while with GG timing is not discussed much.

Selling rules are different for both methods as discussed in my LTBH selling article:
LTBH V: When to sell
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13372399

I believe that Fisher's principles can be used to help evaluate some of the subjective issues that might greatly affect management's execution abilities. You want to own the very best companies, and those are the ones that become Gorillas or strong Kings. The best of these will fit nicely with Fisher's points.

There is a lot more to Fisher than what I've covered above. Please feel free to challenge me on any of my flawed logic. Thanks for bearing with this long post.

-xerohype

Sources used:

GG FAQ version 1.2
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13091110

The Gorilla Game: Picking Winners in High Technology written by Geoffrey A. Moore, Paul Johnson and Tom Kippola.

Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits and other writings by Philip A. Fisher.

Forbes interview of Philip Fisher:
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/092396/5807222a.htm

Living on the Fault Line by Geoffrey A. Moore.

Appendix:

Helpful Links for Fisher Analysis

Taken from this post by mlc11:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13288375

Business Ethics - 100 Best Corporate Citizens
http://www.business-ethics.com/the100.htm#100

Working Woman - 100 Best Companies for Working Mothers
http://www.workingwoman.com/wwn/wwn_driver.showpage?content=4337&area=30
& the 10 Best: http://preview.wwn.com/pvw/wwn_driver.showpage?content=4217&area=30

Fortune - 100 Best Companies to Work For:
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/bestcompanies/
& the 50 Best for Minorities: http://www.fortune.com/fortune/diversity/

Worth - Top 50 CEOs:
http://www.worth.com/articles/Z0005C01.html

Industry Week - Top 100 Managed Companies:
http://www.industryweek.com/iwinprint/BestManaged/2000/database/iw1000names00.asp

Job Circle - High Tech Snapshots:
http://www.jobcircle.com/career/profiles/

Council on Economic Priorities - Corporate Grades
http://www.cepnyc.org/qs/grades.wc?B1=Go+to+the+Free+Ratings+page

Electronic Business - 4000 Senior Execs in Electronics Industry respond to: "If you had to trust all your personal assets and finances to only 2 CEOs, who would they be..":
http://www.e-insite.net/e-insite/e2000/PDFs/peek1a.pdf

The key thing with a Fisher analysis is to analyze management's ability to execute. To this end you need to go through the industry trade magazines, and take in what they say about management.

Here are some online resources (from the GG FAQ) to help evaluate tech stocks:

Upside
http://www.upside.com/
Red Herring
http://www.redherring.com/
Techweb
http://www.techweb.com/
InformationWeek (some great links and in-depth stuff)
http://www.informationweek.com/
ComputerWorld
http://www.computerworld.com/
The Standard
http://www.thestandard.com
LightReading.com (the source for optical networking info)
http://www.lightreading.com
Google (an excellent search engine)
http://www.google.com

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: HandofFate Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4615 of 8764
Subject: Re: Comparing Fisher to GG (very long) Date: 10/1/2000 4:49 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Erick,

Best one yet;
"The whole Fisher philosophy comes down to researching the heck out of a company before you buy it, picking the very best and sticking with them for the long term (as long as those fundamentals hold) watching your gains compound to big returns."

A great sum up of why were here yes ?

Thanks again,
HoF@ridingtheNGNwave.com


Print the post Back To Top
Author: mayacourt Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4620 of 8764
Subject: Re: Comparing Fisher to GG (very long) Date: 10/1/2000 10:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 10
We have been lurking on the Gorilla Board for the past several weeks. We are graduates of the RM seminar and recently bought and read GG. Actually, I (Gene) have read GG and now I am reading “Inside the Tornado”. My "other half" (Mary) has been reading CSUP and has started GG.

We both found the post by xerohype to be very interesting. We agree there is some common ground between GG and CSUP. Particularly, when it comes to searching the jungles for gorillas, both books want to find the gorilla. There is a fundamental difference in the way that they go about the search for the gorilla. For example, the fact that GG does not always have the goal of buying long-term holds. On page 182 of GG there is an example that would contrast GG and CSUP. There Moore says "In high tech, on the other hand, massive shifts of power are routine, so patient holding is not rewarded! This would seem to us to go against the way Fisher (CSUP) would have you invest. Just prior to this line Moore talks about how other sectors do not follow the same rules that apply to the high tech sector.

Buying a basket of stocks to reduce your risk does not seem very Fisher like. GG wants you to purchase a basket comprising all the gorilla candidates-. And Rule 7 says, Once it becomes clear to you that a company will never become a gorilla, sell its stock., and than reinvest in the emerging gorilla candidate. But even with these differences as well as others, both approaches deserve in-depth study and comparison. What do others think?

Mayacourt



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Phileo Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4624 of 8764
Subject: Re: Comparing Fisher to GG (very long) Date: 10/2/2000 1:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Excellent post, Erick.

It makes me wonder if a hybrid GG/RM/Fisher company exists out there in the NASDAQ/NYSE jungle.
Perhaps JDSU may be the single company which best matches all three types of investing criteria. We all know that JDSU is a Rule Maker, as they have been picked by the RM Port. I carried out a Fisher analysis of JDSU, and it met 14 out of the 15 rather rigourous Fisher principles.
The current debate is whether JDSU is a Gorilla Game or not.
Regardless, are there any other companies out there that even come close to matching all three types of investing criteria?


Thx.
Cheers,
Albert

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TMFFuz Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4625 of 8764
Subject: Re: Comparing Fisher to GG (very long) Date: 10/2/2000 3:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
There Moore says "In high tech, on the other hand, massive shifts of power are routine, so patient holding is not rewarded!

As my pal James Cramer would say over at TheStreet.com, "Wrong!"

Fisher invested in technology companies such as Motorola and Texas Instruments and held, held, held, held, and then he held some more. He made millions and millions and a few million more dollars from buying companies that passed the 15 points. Quality management's find new ways to grow the business or ways to revitalize the business when growth begins to dissipate.
He bought companies that invested aggressively in R&D so that there would always be new growth opportunities combined with competent management to capitalize on those opportunities.

Motorola and Texas Instruments have seen massive power shifts, yet they still represented good investments over the time period that Fisher has held them, which is many, many, many years.

Of course, not all companies survive, but that's why you own more than a couple.


Best,
John

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ConsultHR Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4626 of 8764
Subject: Re: Comparing Fisher to GG (very long) Date: 10/2/2000 4:15 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Hi Erick, Gene and others: Gene asked But even with these differences as well as others, both approaches deserve in-depth study and comparison. What do others think?

Yes, I think both approaches deserve in-depth study and comparison. That, I believe is what we have planned on RM Grads - July 2000 board.

While Fisher's 15 points, tool kit, is the best I have seen to evaluate Management Excellence, it may hold little interest to Gorilla Gamers. Royalty Gamers, possibly a different story. But since we all ready have this planned for the RM Grads board, lets invite those from the GG board who are interested to join us. Here is the link to the review of Chapters #1 and #2. With follow-on threads for the reviews of later chapters.

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=13193645

Gene, I suggest you have the right approach in comparing these two different tool kits. To wit, since the investment approaches have been proven over time and each have a "devout" set of followers - lets look for the differences between them in lieu of their commonalities. Since both apparently can be very useful to help us maximize our investment gains, lets study how they differ. This will keep us from trying to "force fit" one set of criteria into the other.

I wouldn't look for any help investing in bio-tech on this board. Nor would I look for an expose of Fisher's Management Excellence on this board.

What I would like help on from this board is:
1) Is JDSU developing some proprietary technology that optical networks need to work - becoming gorilla like.
2) Do any of the major providers of the next generation (Optical/FAT Pipe) network have an opportunity to control some proprietary technology?

We have to participate in two boards, but, I suggest, that helps keep both boards better focused.

My 2 cents

Harold


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: mayacourt Three stars, 500 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4627 of 8764
Subject: Re: Comparing Fisher to GG (very long) Date: 10/2/2000 5:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I completely agree with you. Mary has been providing regular posts on the RM Grad board. I have been lurking over there - Mary and I have been comparing notes. She has been trying to persuade me to add my thoughts to the book club discussion. She has more opportunity to post than I do, but most posts have some of both our thoughts.

We are just trying to keep the discussion going - Always trying to become more foolish.

Mayacourt

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DirtyDingus Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4646 of 8764
Subject: Re: Comparing Fisher to GG (very long) Date: 10/4/2000 9:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Although it is worth comparing the GG and Fisher styles I don't think that the two are that comparable. Why? GG is looking (usually) for small companies that are inthe process of growing fast whereas Fisher analysis is looking for GG companies once they have graduated to main street.

In other words NOK and INTC are good fisher investment picks (as are JDSU, NT, SUNW, CSCO...) but none are really GG picks either because they aren't in a GG but in a royalty game or because they have already passed through the tornado and are out placidly on the other side after hypergrowth has slackened.

I feel that Fisher analysis and RM analysis are often complementary and indeed in may ways an RM analysis is a numerical expression of a fisher analysis and (not surprisingly) the companies I mention as being good fisher investment picks are also companies that come up frequently as RM picks (whether TMF's RM port has the company or not the RM analysis for most of these is right up in the top tier).

GG investors aren't looking at established companies in established markets. They are looking for Rule Breakers so really GG techniques should be compared with TMF's Rule Breaker techniques while the RM and Fisher techniques are separate.

Just because a Fisher analysis can lead you to an exceptional company with huge stock appreciation and GG approach can do the same does not mean that the two styles are the same.

Personally I incline more to the Fisher/RM investment approach but I think it is worth having some GG identified investments too to provide diversification of risk.

DD


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: MikeBuckley Big red star, 1000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4648 of 8764
Subject: Re: Comparing Fisher to GG (very long) Date: 10/4/2000 10:30 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
DD,

GG investors aren't looking at established companies in established markets.

That might be true for you but not for a lot of people. Many people prefer that significant portions of their portfolio be allocated to the established silverbacks exemplified by the likes of Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, and Oracle. Their reasons are easily justified in my mind by the solid, long-term growth established gorillas can have once their product as reached Main Street.

--Mike Buckley

Print the post Back To Top
Author: DirtyDingus Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4649 of 8764
Subject: Re: Comparing Fisher to GG (very long) Date: 10/4/2000 11:05 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I said...
GG investors aren't looking at established companies in established markets.

To which MikeBuckley replied

That might be true for you but not for a lot of people. Many people prefer that significant portions of their portfolio be allocated to the established silverbacks exemplified by the likes of Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, and Oracle.

I think I was unclear. When I think of the GG investment strategy is the one about identifying a market and buying companies in the tornado/bowling alley as defined in the book.

This does not compare well to Fisher analysis. I agree that holding established gorillas is a viable strategy - its mostly my strategy and I hold at least 2 of your gorillas INTC and CSCO - but I think that you do better analysing the established gorilla by a means other than GG becuase IMO GG investment analysis isn't about measuring established gorillas its about detecting nascent ones.

DD


Print the post Back To Top
Author: xerohype Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4650 of 8764
Subject: Re: Comparing Fisher to GG (very long) Date: 10/4/2000 11:27 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Hi DD:

I still it is very useful to compare and contrast investment styles, you never know when some of those skills might come in handy some day. For example, if Nortel (NT) a company you are very familiar with <ggg> does not have a management that can continue executing in Fisher-like fashion it will end up as roadkill in the infobahn.

Mike Buckley (Gorilla Game deity that he is) put it very well:
"Many people prefer that significant portions of their portfolio be allocated to the established silverbacks exemplified by the likes of Cisco, Intel, Microsoft, and Oracle. Their reasons are easily justified in my mind by the solid, long-term growth established gorillas can have once their product as reached Main Street."

It's all about risk tolerance. My two biggest holdings I consider Fisher stocks, EMC a well-executing royalty play; and CSCO, a well-executing Silverback Gorilla. Despite all the recent volatility and market gyrations, I am very comfortable having a large percentage of my portfolio in those two holdings. There is a lot more certainty when you invest in proven Gorillas even after they have left their tornado, especially if those Gorillas have management that executes in a Fisher-like style.

I believe that there is also value to applying Fisher criteria to companies in the bowling alley and early tornado. Execution is critical for companies crossing the chasm as they try to capture niche markets that correspond to those bowling pins. As they knock down more pins they can then ramp their platform-type product into the tornado. Capturing market share is all about sales execution in the tornado. One of Fisher's points deals with having an above average sales organization.

DD wrote:
"This does not compare well to Fisher analysis. I agree that holding established gorillas is a viable strategy - its mostly my strategy and I hold at least 2 of your gorillas INTC and CSCO - but I think that you do better analysing the established gorilla by a means other than GG becuase IMO GG investment analysis isn't about measuring established gorillas its about detecting nascent ones."

I still believe that Fisher can be helpful in analyzing nascent Gorillas as well, especially once they hit the tornado. For me it's all about building knowledge and having different ways to evaluate companies. Not all Fisher companies have been large established behemoths, TXN was a young company back in 1956 when Fisher wrote his book, and it hasn't done badly over the years.

After reading Living on the Fault Line I was convinced that Fisher principles can play a very useful role in analyzing how well management is executing their plan, especially in the context of the technolgy adoption cycle.

There are some key differences between GG and Fisher, but I believe that both methods have a lot of merit and can help all of us become much better investors.

-xerohype



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: WildWolf2 Two stars, 250 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 4656 of 8764
Subject: Re: Comparing Fisher to GG (very long) Date: 10/4/2000 6:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
There is a lot more certainty when you invest in proven Gorillas even after they have left their tornado, especially if those Gorillas have management that executes in a Fisher-like style.

Once again xerohype you have nailed it!!!!!
This is the best of all worlds, great companies with great management. This is where I look to invest.

WildWolf2



Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (12) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement