There are many companies whose existence provides a foundation in the main for other companies to survive like the carrier shells in the Xenophora branch.

I would consider the car companies carrier shells as they provided for so many part suppliers to make billions, including all the GPS companies recently that sold out at values greater than the carrier. Whole Foods down some 80% is proud of all it did to make billions for so many companies that sold it products and then were bought out or went public. The same would be true for the electronic retail stores, that sell so many good electronic devices so efficiently that have made so many fortunes. What other carrier shell type companies do readers find relevant?

Steve Ellison adds:

There have been many companies that used IBM as a carrier shell, for example, Amdahl, EDS, and BMC Software [not to mention Compaq and the whole PC-compatible industry of the 1980s]. The big software companies, including Microsoft, Oracle and SAP, are all carrier shells for numerous independent software vendors and systems integrators that provide installation services, auxiliary programs, or consulting to help users navigate the complexities of the big companies' products.

Mike Humbert writes:

How about farms? They turned equiptment companies like Deere, fertilizer companies like POT and MOS, and seed companies like Monsanto into rocket ships.



Jim Lorie

(Photo above: the late Professor James H. Lorie (1922-2005). An obituary appeared on this web site in August 2005.)

My experience with "false gestures" reached its climax at its inception as I accompanied Jim Lorie when he showed prospective University of Chicago professors to the Hyde Park neighborhood. He'd stop at The Unique Deli and conspicuously leave the keys in the car. The prospect would say "I thought it would be very dangerous here" and Jim would say "it's so safe here that I don't even have to worry about the car."

A highlight of my observation of false gestures came when I saw a distinguished Objectivist scholar, always dressed in formal suit and tie, stoop to play with a child at a lecture he gave where all the questions had to be submitted in writing in advance and I couldn't even ask him about the identical twins. The gesture was so false, so contrived, he was so obviously uncomfortable with kids that it was a laugh.

A third experience was watching a Japanese movie where the blond American proprietress of a Japanese wine shop spoke in Japanese to all the Japanese customers. It was so hilarious, so out of whack, that you understood immediately why Japanese think that any American who tries to speak their language, no matter how good his accent and grammar, is an utter charlatan.

A recent experience came when I asked an attorney whether it is good to look at the jury when testifying or look directly at the questioner. He said " the juries hate it when you look at them because they know you're treating them like sheep" and they really don't believe you're that much more sagacious and truthful and a man of the people than they.

I wonder what the significance of false gestures in the market is. It's almost a Googlewhack with just nine out of context, unrelated conjunctions of "stock market" and "false gestures." The move on Monday that's reversed on Tuesday comes to mind, or the move from 2:30 to 3:00, like today, up 1% on the Bear Stearns increase rumour immediately followed by down 2% on the Oracle shortfall of 1/3 of 1% on revenues. Yes, but the real ones are part of the "I'm the greatest" bag. They come when companies fudge the real reasons for their shortfall of earnings or insiders fudge their real reason for selling out – "it was just estate and family matters."

The whole subject calls for quantification and further examples in all fields related to investments.

Jeff Watson adds:

False gestures are the mother of all deceptions. From political campaigns to fire and brimstone preachers, all use false gestures to achieve their ends. The wheat market players have been known to use false gestures in the form of buying up three or four whole trainloads of wheat well before the futures market opening. When the cash board shows a smaller than expected amount of cash wheat coming to market, it can cause the futures market to move up, mostly retail driven. A savvy purchaser of the small cash position can sell a lot of wheat in the futures market at a higher price and also resell the cash position at a premium. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

John White writes:

 On many occasions the market has been referred to as “the market mistress.” I find this to be an apt moniker because she shares many qualities with women. She’s complex, mysterious, seductive, and just when you think you’ve got her figured out, she surprises you. With that in mind I thought some observations from last night’s carousing with a friend (in celebration of a birthday) might shed some light.

One only need sit in a singles bar for an hour or two to observe hundreds of false gestures. Looking back on the mating rituals from an anthropological standpoint, it seems to me that the market (women) falls for, then identifies, and finally renders obsolete false gestures. Pick up lines are useless. Sending a drink across the bar is passé. “Do you come here often?” usually elicits a mocking laugh. Fortunately for market participants (men) there seems to be an unending supply of original false gestures due to everchanging cycles. Pick up lines are now a contest to see who can come up with the most outrageous and are obviously a joke. I have sent a drink across the bar, but it was a glass of water. The response was a playful tossing of ice back across the bar and a subsequent invitation for a conversation. When it comes to these false gestures, the key to success seems to be originality and timing. An original and unexpected false gesture can move the market drastically.

My final observation is that even the successful false gesture is merely a crutch. If there is no substance to back it up, the market reverses. It is useful for getting a date (trading), but not for getting a girlfriend/wife (investing).

Steve Leslie explains:

The classic false gesture in poker is the check-raise. Example: you are in a hold-em game and the flop hits your hand and you get a set. You are the first to act. Rather than bet the hand you check. An aggressive player behind you, who might have the top pair comes out swinging and forces the action by putting in a sizable bet. Now you come back at him, and reraise. Properly constructed and carried off, it is the most powerful and profitable play. I find that the player who has been reraised usually knows at this point that he is beat but just can't get away from the hand, and calls the reraise and you take down the pot.

Mike Humbert replies:

Whenever I listen to someone telling me how easy something like this is, e.g., winning at poker, picking winning stocks, etc., this scene from "Get Shorty" always comes to mind. BO CATLETT is Delroy Lindo; CHILI is John Travolta.

BO CATLETT: You know what I'm thinkin'? (leans forward) You wanna make the girl older. I don't like the ending. We could do that, you and me, sit down and write the script over where it needs it.

Chili fips through the movie script a moment . . .

CHILI: You know how to write one of these?

BO CATLETT: There's nothin' to know. You have an idea, you write down what you wanna say. Then you get somebody to add in the commas and sh*t where they belong, if you aren't positive yourself. Maybe fix up the spelling where you have some tricky words… although I've seen scripts where I know words weren't spelled right and there was hardly any commas in it at all. So I don't think it's too important. Anyway, you come to the last page you write in 'Fade out' and that's the end, you're done.

CHILI: That's all there is to it, huh?

BO CATLETT: That's all.

Chili sits forward, stabs out his cigarette, exhales into Bo Catlett's face . . .

CHILI: Then what the f*ck do I need you for?

Eric Blumenschein writes:

False gestures in speculation are not the same as in poker. In poker, you can see the card holders. The equivalent in trading would be six traders sitting in a circle at their screens and you six are the only traders of that particular instrument. Now imagine watching the other five and your screen. Watching price break a new low and looking around to see if anyone is squirming or sweating while others are looking back at you. In trading you don't see the other card holders. It is more like trying to play poker in a dark room around a huge table with only a match to see your hand and the flop is the Fed. So how do you play the game now? The commitment of traders model alone is not enough. I could go bankrupt waiting for them to break the trend. I can't see the game they are in? Are they hedging another kind of trade? What table are they at? What is the flop they are looking for: Housing Starts, Industrial Production, inverted yield curve? Does that make their hand? Now imagine in poker the dealer lays down six different flops to play and after each bet he may or may not make changes in a few cards in the different flops. Would you call that game poker?


Resources & Links