I’m not Dan, but I can guess where he’s coming from. Dan, if you’re still out there, I hope you’ll help us better understand…
Dan did a HUGE amount of work, vetting more than seven hundred stocks across something like eight or nine metrics. Even if the task was largely automated, he worked to build the automation. He got some favorable response for that, but nothing overwhelming.
Next, he chose a top-rated stock for a much deeper dive, hoping others would contribute and create a really good vetting of that company. Again, he got some support, but nothing overwhelming. I take some blame. I did a little research, which turns out not to have contributed anything useful, and then backed off. Why? To borrow Saul’s parlance, the company didn’t “sing” to me. And apparently I wasn’t alone in that reaction.
I think some people may have been turned off by the similarity to Infinera, which many felt “burned” by. They’re different businesses targeting different parts of the market, I can assure you, but they both play in related spaces. I still own Infinera, and have a large position in a laser manufacturer, and that is part of my lack of interest in owning this company. Also, Saul has made it clear that he doesn’t care to invest in Chinese companies. Although this isn’t one, literally, Dan’s description introduced enough of a connection for some of us to consider the possibility of a “wolf in sheep’s clothing”.
My suggestion, Dan, if you’re still with us…
Rather than investing a large effort into one company, which may or may not resonate here, invest a MUCH smaller effort into a handful (say, four, and I’ll explain that number in a moment). Create a thumbnail sketch for each of the four. But instead of a post to explain the companies, create a poll. The Motley Fool’s polling mechanism allows for five choices. You might ask: For which of the following companies would I be willing to contribute some research? List the four companies, and the fifth choice would be “none of these resonate with me”. If the clear winner is “none of the above”, at least you won’t have invested too much in the four you chose, and if you’re feeling as if there still might be hope for us, you could thumbnail another four. To increase your odds of finding a “hit” early in the process, I’d suggest looking for companies with recurring revenues, or at least revenues that don’t exhibit lumpiness and seem to have a powerful growth trajectory.
If you’ve read my earnings analyses on this board, several of them contained a “1000 Days of Ratios Analysis” – a process I developed myself (based on inspiration from some very smart message board posters). I created a message board hoping that some others would take an interest in the methodology and be willing to do the work for a few companies themselves. As they say, “Many hands makes light work.” I was disappointed when there was some interest in my methodology, but no interest in taking on some of the workload. I suspect Dan is coming from a very similar place, feeling as if he’s built something valuable, is looking for some support to take it broader and deeper, and is hearing mostly crickets instead of applause. I have that T-shirt.
If I’m right, I’m sorry for your disappointment, Dan, but I think it’s the nature of the beast (and now I have a sample size of two to prove it!). As I alluded to, though, your choice of AAOI as a starting place may not have helped your cause because it hit too many negative points for the group assembled here. Hopefully my suggestions can help you find another company that resonates better. There are any number of instances where Saul has credited someone on this board for bringing a company to his attention that ultimately made it into his portfolio. Just because AAOI isn’t going to be one of them, I hope you don’t stop trying.
Fool on!
Thanks and best wishes,
TMFDatabaseBob (long: INFN)
See my holdings here: http://my.fool.com/profile/TMFDatabasebob/info.aspx
Peace on Earth