| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft Up After First Day of Split | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: TheStreet.com | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
On most days it would be big news: Microsoft down 50% from previous close. But not today. The 2-for-1 stock split announced earlier in the year went into effect Tuesday. That means there's twice as much Microsoft stock on the market, but at half the price. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:11:08 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 2/19/2003 1:23:52 PM |
|
I bought at 110 (55 now)
*sob* It'll come back though, I'm in for the long haul. |
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/19/2003 6:03:26 PM |
| daz, it's nice to see a sucker who's proud of it. |
| #3 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 2/19/2003 6:42:16 PM |
| jerk is only jealous because he sunk his money into blow up dolls and licorice. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/19/2003 8:18:46 PM |
|
Jealous that he bought the stock near its peak and has since lost over 50% of it? That he is waiting for it to go up over 100% of its current value before he makes a profit?
Naw, I'm happy with how I handle my investments, thanks. Someone is going to have to teach you the meaning of jealous someday, mooresa. |
| #5 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 2/19/2003 8:34:18 PM |
|
soda, If you look at MS's stock history, I think you'll see that history is on my side, not to mention that long-term investing rarely goes wrong if you pick solid companies.
MS has never posted a loss as far as I can remember, in fact, I think only a few times have they ever fallen short of profit expectations. Despite this artificial slump they're in, caused by the persecution of Janet El Reno, there is nothing that suggests their stock price will decrease in value much over a long time. They are innovative, reliable, and financially savvy with most of their investments. Apparently you don't invest much, or only invest short term, in which case, why are you criticizing my portfolio? You have no idea what else I have in it or my distribution. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/19/2003 9:08:12 PM |
|
Hey, I'm not criticizing--I'm just saluting you for being proud of a horrible investment.
"If you look at MS's stock history, I think you'll see that history is on my side..." I am looking at their history, the last three years... and your history--purchasing them at the height of the antitrust trial? right at the peak of the market falloff? History and your investment do not look to be on your side. "MS has never posted a loss as far as I can remember, in fact, I think only a few times have they ever fallen short of profit expectations." Too bad these do not define the actual value of the stock, eh? "Despite this artificial slump they're in, caused by the persecution of Janet El Reno..." Believe insane, Paraniod "persecution" (?) theories if you like--call it an investment strategy if you like, it's still a horrible investment strategy and shows little understanding of the marketplace. "there is nothing that suggests their stock price will decrease in value much over a long time." And there is absolutely nothing to suggest that they will increase in value by over 100% any time soon either... How long do you think it will take to get you to breakeven? 2 years, 3 years, 5 years... Keep waiting. Even though you've lost half that dough, there are stocks that are growing right now. "Apparently you don't invest much, or only invest short term..." Wrong and wrong. "in which case, why are you criticizing my portfolio?" When did I criticize your portfolio? "You have no idea what else I have in it or my distribution."Exactly, and I didn't mention anything else, did I?--I didn't criticize your portfolio--I criticized the idea that after losing so much, it's worth keeping your money in the same stock when it can actually perform in other areas. I don't care how your investments are, I don't intend to lecture you, I'm just commenting on your misguided optimism and getting a smile out of it. |
| #7 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 2/20/2003 9:57:26 AM |
|
I'll just pop my uninvited head in here for a sec and say...
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/P41226.asp Briefly it says - "Buy-and-hold forever is no guarantee of success." "The long run is a long shot Meantime, the mania's aftermath has seen no shortage of investing myths masquerading as truths. But a study by three academics from the London Business School, which was recently reported in a great Wall Street Journal article titled "Long-Term Risk Is Underestimated," goes a long way toward debunking these myths. To begin with, professors Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton dispelled the buy-and-hold notion by observing that "not only can markets take a long time to recover, but also investors generally underestimate what the safe long-run period is to hold stocks." Many times, I have made the point that for me, a rational long-term horizon is say, three to five years. Often, you can feel like you have some sense of how things might play out over that time frame. But, in my opinion, to think you could have a reasonable basis for a 10- or 20-year investment is kind of crazy. Nevertheless, people sometimes fall back on that to justify holding on to prior losers. Just how dangerous this is can be seen in another finding of the study, which is that "out of 16 major national stock markets, investors from only five would have been guaranteed positive annual returns over every 20-year period during the past century." That's pretty staggering. Most people feel it's a slam-dunk that they're going to win over 20 years. Of course, that presupposes they won't fall prey to another problem, which is survivor bias. It's quite possible that even if the market worked out over 20 years, the handful of stocks they picked might not, as most people who bought Internet stocks can now see clearly." |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/20/2003 12:41:01 PM |
|
Well said, Bob. I usually don't like to spak of how I invest, but my rule is if I lose 20-25% and do not think that loss can be recovered within 1-2 years, that stock is sold. There is always something on the up, it's often better to take the losses.
Seriously, does anyone think MS can go up 100% in anything less than 5 years? Not I. |
| #9 By 3653 (63.162.177.140) at 2/21/2003 2:47:09 PM |
| jerk's investments in PALM, ORCL and SUNW have outperformed MSFT? LOL. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:11:08 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
