3 ms·

If you want to see what a dismal company Xerox is check its share price over the last fifty years. Even accounting for stock splits and dividends the performanc

If you want to see what a dismal company Xerox is check its share price over the last fifty years. Even accounting for stock splits and dividends the performance is dire for a technology company.

ErigmolCt 11mo ago
That's fair if you look at Xerox through the lens of "tech company returns"
crawancon 11mo ago
there are many reasons for this, but I can only comment that they should have left GIS alone, and not let ACS divest. They'd have been stronger this decade with those performing assets. so yeah, thanks Carl.
- tonyedgecombe 11mo ago
  >They'd have been stronger this decade with those performing assets. Or they might have destroyed them. I wonder how Lexmark is doing under their control.
justin66 11mo ago
For someone not inclined to dredge up all that data and do the calculations to factor in dividends, where can we take a look at it? It's a bit of a miracle any technology company that old is still going after all these years. "Dismal" does not seem like an accurate way of characterizing it. (for someone just taking a glance at the stock price chart, which doesn't take into account dividends, it looks like they were performing well financially until COVID?)
- kevstev 11mo ago
  Easily found on Google finance or similar sites: https://www.google.com/finance/beta/quote/XRX:NASDAQ?sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwifnoPB_L-RAxW3F1kFHVRxJ3UQ3ecFKAR6BAgjEAU&window=MAX https://www.google.com/finance/beta/quote/XRX:NASDAQ?sa=X&sq... Not quite 50 years, but you get the idea.
  - justin66 11mo ago
    Is there anything on that site that would, as I asked, factor in dividends when analyzing the company's performance? It's a classic problem when comparing stock charts with one another (or against the index) that they don't take into account dividends in a meaningful way. "Wow, that line has been flat for a long time! Why does anyone think this is a good investment?" (not meant to be a commentary on Xerox's performance at all - they're clearly in a bad state right now)
    - kevstev 11mo ago
      Looks like this site does: https://totalrealreturns.com/n/VFINX,VBMFX,USDOLLAR,XRX https://totalrealreturns.com/n/VFINX,VBMFX,USDOLLAR,XRX Dividends are so out of favor now for most companies, it's not something I have personally cared that much about. But it is important to get a true picture, especially over very long timelines before tax laws changed that made buybacks more efficient.
      - justin66 11mo ago
        Thanks for the total return chart. Comparing XRX to IBM was interesting. A long term XRX investor who was perceptive enough to get out before the 1999 crash would have been very happy indeed. Something like three fourths of the S&P 500 pay a dividend, so it's not really an irrelevancy.

If you want to see what a dismal company Xerox is check its share price over the last fifty years. Even accounting for stock splits and dividends the performance is dire for a technology company.

ErigmolCt 11mo ago

That's fair if you look at Xerox through the lens of "tech company returns"

crawancon 11mo ago

there are many reasons for this, but I can only comment that they should have left GIS alone, and not let ACS divest. They'd have been stronger this decade with those performing assets. so yeah, thanks Carl.

tonyedgecombe 11mo ago
>They'd have been stronger this decade with those performing assets. Or they might have destroyed them. I wonder how Lexmark is doing under their control.

justin66 11mo ago

For someone not inclined to dredge up all that data and do the calculations to factor in dividends, where can we take a look at it? It's a bit of a miracle any technology company that old is still going after all these years. "Dismal" does not seem like an accurate way of characterizing it. (for someone just taking a glance at the stock price chart, which doesn't take into account dividends, it looks like they were performing well financially until COVID?)

kevstev 11mo ago
Easily found on Google finance or similar sites: https://www.google.com/finance/beta/quote/XRX:NASDAQ?sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwifnoPB_L-RAxW3F1kFHVRxJ3UQ3ecFKAR6BAgjEAU&window=MAX https://www.google.com/finance/beta/quote/XRX:NASDAQ?sa=X&sq... Not quite 50 years, but you get the idea.
- justin66 11mo ago
  Is there anything on that site that would, as I asked, factor in dividends when analyzing the company's performance? It's a classic problem when comparing stock charts with one another (or against the index) that they don't take into account dividends in a meaningful way. "Wow, that line has been flat for a long time! Why does anyone think this is a good investment?" (not meant to be a commentary on Xerox's performance at all - they're clearly in a bad state right now)
  - kevstev 11mo ago
    Looks like this site does: https://totalrealreturns.com/n/VFINX,VBMFX,USDOLLAR,XRX https://totalrealreturns.com/n/VFINX,VBMFX,USDOLLAR,XRX Dividends are so out of favor now for most companies, it's not something I have personally cared that much about. But it is important to get a true picture, especially over very long timelines before tax laws changed that made buybacks more efficient.
    - justin66 11mo ago
      Thanks for the total return chart. Comparing XRX to IBM was interesting. A long term XRX investor who was perceptive enough to get out before the 1999 crash would have been very happy indeed. Something like three fourths of the S&P 500 pay a dividend, so it's not really an irrelevancy.