| 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 loses No. 2 ranking in market value to drug maker | |
|
||
| Time: 07:49 EST/12:49 GMT | News Source: Bloomberg | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
NEW YORK — Microsoft has lost its status as the world's second-largest corporation to drug maker Pfizer due to slowing sales growth that caused it to miss out on this year's stock-market rally. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:47:58 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 6/19/2003 10:01:40 AM |
|
"due to slowing sales growth"
Yeah, it had absolutely NOTHING to do with Pfizer doubling in size last year when it bought out Pharmacia. Good Lord, where must we go for some slightly more complete reporting? |
| #2 By 7390 (198.246.16.251) at 6/19/2003 10:31:30 AM |
| Why let details cloud the issue? |
| #3 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 6/19/2003 11:00:54 AM |
| No Viagra jokes??? C'mon, folks... you're not trying very hard (oops!).... |
| #4 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 6/19/2003 12:51:27 PM |
|
"Good Lord, where must we go for some slightly more complete reporting? "
Umm, the second, third, fourth, fifth... paragraph. "Why let details cloud the issue?" Maybe you should read the details. "Microsoft slipped from its No. 2 perch as computer-related shares soared. An index of computer companies in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index has climbed 23 percent this year, while shares of Microsoft have gained just 0.9 percent, the sixth-worst-performing stock among the 83 members of the technology index." "New York-based Pfizer, the world's largest drug maker, may not hold onto the No. 2 slot it gained this week for long: A decline of just 1.7 percent in its share price could cause it to drop below Microsoft." i.e. This isn't a doom-and-gloom story; it's an objective financial assessment of the market leaders. The Pharmacia deal has been in the works for over a year. Market pricing leads the news (it closed in April and most regulatory hurdles were known to be cleared months earlier). Do we qualify HP's sales figures because they purchased Compaq ("well, they aren't really the biggest shipper of servers because they bought Compaq this year.") Read more than the first sentence, boys. The gist is: MS is still in position to be number two but has anemic growth. Had they had just the slightest bit of growth, they'd still be number two. But there are reasons to be concerned about future growth prospects for Microsoft. Whereas Pfizer (no matter where it comes from) continues to be a strong growth opportunity. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, June 19, 2003 at 13:18. |
| #5 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 6/19/2003 1:43:50 PM |
|
I read it. I don't see how Pharmacia is the only reason for Pfizer's strong performance; there were numerous reasons (not to mention the numerous pressures downward (generic drugs) on Pfizer's valuation despite strongth growth). It specifically mentions Pfizer just passing MS this month--are you or anyone going to claim that growth in May/June is the product of a merger completely closed up in April that had been anticipated in last year's summer? Is that where Pfizer's growth came from this month?
Besides his "specific complaint" is incomplete reporting; this article is very complete: it's thesis is MS loses number two position--it's supporting evidence is a lack of growth, being completed crushed in the marketplace by the rest of the industry (in terms of growth), etc... And the point of the sentence is perfectly valid. MS stood still while Pfizer grew. The rest of the tech market sector grew strongly, MS did not. MS lost its position because it stood still. If they had grown slightly they'd still be number two. Is that now not true because other companies had reasons to grow? Everyone had accepted the merger a year ago, there's no need to rehash it... and the article isn't about Pfizer. It's about Microsoft. The article is primarily about MS's slow growth. Let's break it down further: what is the premise: MS is no longer No. 2; why? because of poor growth. I don't see any poor or invalid reporting in this article. All I see is softies jumping on a sentence and crying poor reporting despite reality and evidence otherwise. Is the argument that MS would still be No. 2 if the rest of industry stood still? Fine. Pathetic but fine. Unfortunately, it's MS that stagnant not the rest of the world. And that's the point of the article. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, June 19, 2003 at 14:15. |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 6/19/2003 2:36:57 PM |
|
Of course, there are other points of view on the matter:
http://www.fortune.com/fortune/bottomline/0,15704,456382,00.html |
| #7 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 6/19/2003 3:40:48 PM |
|
more ABM from jerky...
La Ooze Er |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/19/2003 4:45:39 PM |
|
that's the best rebuttal you've got, mooresa, huh? This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, June 19, 2003 at 17:56. |
| #9 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 6/19/2003 6:01:08 PM |
|
That's fine, bluvg, but this article doesn't have that much of a perspective. It's pretty objective. The stock is no longer growing. That's it.
And what about what I'm saying is ABM, mooresa? My only point is you guys are flying off the handle for no reason: this article has evidence to support its argument, it does so objectively. |
| #10 By 1868 (141.133.176.17) at 6/19/2003 6:31:51 PM |
| How many billions is enough billions?? hmmm.... how many.... this really isn't anything at all... mere hype and or speculation...... so I ask you.... Do you really think Billy G or Steve give two cents about it.... nah, didn't think so, why cuz Microsoft will continue to be a gold mine for years and years to come. Oh an where's linux, oh that's right, DEAD LAST because linux itself doesn't make any money. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/19/2003 6:36:19 PM |
|
Zeo, And?....
The question is: is MS a good investment? Are they still a growth company? If you've been investe in MS for the last year, you made a 0.9% return. I make more than that in a savings acct. |
| #12 By 1868 (141.133.176.17) at 6/19/2003 7:03:54 PM |
|
Soda,
Maybe in the last year, but most companies have been hit hard on this past year's returns. But over the long term, its been a healthy investment. Are they a growth company, from what I've seen the juries still out, but I'm going to be holding on to my shares for the long term and I'll be raking in more money than any lame savings acct. |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 6/19/2003 7:46:56 PM |
|
Zeo, as noted in the article, the S&P 500 grew by 23%. MSFT by 0.9%.
Of the 83 tech members of the index, MS only did better than 5 other companies. The market ACTUALLY hasn't been that bad to many stocks this year. If you choose wisely, there have been some fantastic investments. Do you think I'm recommending a savings acct? No. But it still outperforms MSFT. What do you think the long term is these days? How long before MSFT's big push? I'd rather buy-and-sell (long term investment for me these days is one year or less) and be in stocks growing now rather than next decade. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, June 19, 2003 at 19:48. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 316 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:47:58 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
