Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of 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

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.