4 ms·
Even when you compare post-bubble market cap, say from 2002 to now, it's shockingly bad performance for Microsoft: AAPL: $5 billion -> $465 billion GOOG: $16
by sytelus 13y ago
Even when you compare post-bubble market cap, say from 2002 to now, it's shockingly bad performance for Microsoft:
AAPL: $5 billion -> $465 billion
GOOG: $16 billion -> $288 billion
MSFT: $217 billion -> $291 billion
I know now you might nitpick that AAPL and GOOG were very small in 2002 and not comparable to saturated markets Microsoft operates in. In that case, take example of even non-tech well established companies:
AT&T: $72 billion -> $203 billion
StarBucks: $7 billion -> $53 billion
However you can still argue that Microsoft increased its revenue 3 folds and profit 2 folds under Ballmer. That might be good metric to measure Ballmer's performance but this does not discount for inflation (36%) and auto-accumulating multi-year enterprise contracts that have been pilling up since Gates era (unknown value).
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- shalmanese 13y agoThis is largely an artifact of survivorship bias. If you compare MS to it's peers: GE: $372B -> $239B MS: $326B -> $239B Exxon: $299B -> $403B Wal-Mart: $273B -> $247B Citigroup: $255B -> $134B Pfizer: $249B -> $207B Intel: $203B -> $108B BP: $200B -> $130B Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_by_market_capitalization#2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporations_by_market_... http://www.ft.com/intl/indepth/ft500 http://www.ft.com/intl/indepth/ft500
- smackfu 13y agoSo the revenue went up 3x and profit 2x, and the valuation stayed flat, and that is a failure of the company? What crazy world are we living in?