Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 1
but I encourage you to clarify for readers the difference between your definition of a Gorilla and the authors' definition when you proclaim a company a Gorilla

You are correct Mike. The true aspect of a Gorilla is a company who is already in the Tornado and demonstrably so. I am tweaking the definition to suit my conservatively aggressive investment thesis. For the GG purist a purchase of GMST may still be too early. Although in Godzilla terms, since GMST has reached a critical mass (although I assign that critical mass to Gorilla elements) GMST will achieve Godzilla revenues. Which may alleviate some of the extra risks of an earlier purchase.

I guess what I look for is times to enter companies (consistent with the intent of the GG) at times when risk is minimal and rewards are great. This is the essence of the Gorilla Game. From a strict doctrinal approach Gemstar is not a Gorilla. We don't have the quarterly revenue growth.

But from an analysis of the intent of the Gorilla Game of finding lower risk high return investments GMST clearly has at least approached Gorilla status. Its forward revenues have excellent visibility and it has locked up its market absent an unexpected turn in litigation or discontinuous event like Internet television.

The real risk is, and I guess I've been discounting it because it seems so certain is that the guides will not provide the sort of revenue that we have all been anticipating. $100 per household to GMST seems to be the going figure. If GMST's guides failed to produce such revenue the Street would be disappointed and the stock would certainly fall to levels which better represent these lower revenue expectations. SO EVERYONE KEEP IN MIND THEIR IS THIS RISK! AND IT IS A REAL RISK.

However, the same is true of Q as well. Their is fear out their that Q's chip revenues per phone (its ASPs) will continue to fall and to fall to such an extent that their future revenue streams will not justify their current market valuation. In this sense then it could be said that Q is not a Gorilla. It does have a lock on its market (absent an unexpected turn in litigation or discontinous innovation) but we don't know if CDMA will be able to penetrate the world market and displace GMS or if Q will be able to keep the same revenue level per chip into the future. As such it could be argued that Q should also not dominate a person's portfolio because it does not have the Gorilla power of a CSCO, MSFT or INTC at this time. If Q fails to reach world dominating market levels over the next couple of years and if its ASPs on chips fall Q's stock price will certainly suffer to reflect these lower revenue expectations as well.

But perhaps this analogy is incorrect. I will have to rethink through it and would appreciate any help in this process. If Q is a Gorilla (which I have no doubt about - please stop group think if that is occurring here) then is GMST more risky than Q at this time? Maybe it is but I think the issue needs to be clarified a bit better.

Thanks for any input.

Tinker
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.