Nokia and Microsoft: 2 Losers = 1 Winner?

The combination of assets between Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT  ) and Nokia (NYSE: NOK  ) is a fascinating alliance that has been born out of the desperation of two giants that aim to score a portion of the global smartphone gold mine. As powerful as Microsoft and Nokia have been in the past, and for all the resources and experience they can throw at developing a smartphone, the partnership is merely an opportunity and not a guarantee for success. Nokia will have to learn to swim in hostile waters that are just waiting to eat it alive. And even if it succeeds, it will lose in the end.

Stephen Elop has taken Nokia by the hand and made the jump. Symbian is burning to ashes, and MeeGo has been taken along like the unwanted stepchild but may be left to drown. Steve Ballmer's Titanic is saving Elop and Nokia from Google's and Apple's sharks for now, but Microsoft has been unable to fix the leaks in its own Windows Phone 7 hull and hopes that Nokia may deliver a miracle. If you think about it, the alliance between Nokia and Microsoft was really the only possibility for both companies to keep the hopes for a brighter future alive.

Nokia: rise and fall 
Nokia was once the Apple of the cell-phone industry. The company dominated cell-phone sales with a market lead since 1998 and drove the industry through phenomenal growth above 1 billion sold units every year. It was the driving force to make text messaging popular, and it was a key player behind the adoption of data services, which included, for example, downloadable ringtones and simple games. We should not forget that the smartphone can be traced back to Nokia (if we forget for a moment that Handspring was the company that actually shaped the modern smartphone with the Treo in 2001): Remember the bulky Communicator 9000 from 1996?

In the fourth quarter of 2010, Nokia sold about 124 million phones. However, only 28.3 million of those were smartphones, and only 2.6 million were sold in the United States. Nokia's smartphone sales climbed by 36% year over year, while the entire market climbed by 72% and the stars of the industry increased their sales by almost 100% (Apple) and almost 900% (Google), according to Gartner. Apple now controls the high-end segment of the smartphone market and Google aims for the midrange with Research In Motion (which is also growing below the market average), while there are only scraps left for Nokia, Microsoft, and Hewlett-Packard (Palm).

Nokia's market share has been declining at an accelerating pace -- and has just surrendered its leadership position in smartphones to Android. Having waited for too long already, the company needed to act. Nokia always described Android as a rival and not as a potential partner, and Elop's recent "burning platform" memo continued on that path. Microsoft was the only option. Elop has detailed knowledge of Microsoft, and there may be some unusual synergies that could make the alliance work in a much better way than with two companies whose executives do not speak the same (business) language.

Leaving Symbian behind; cutting MeeGo
Symbian is the obvious casualty of this alliance. There are more questions that surround MeeGo, a platform Nokia birthed in cooperation with Intel. However, the development has been too slow, and we now know that only one device will make it to market in 2011.

Seriously: Why bother?

MeeGo cannot succeed without a platform and an ecosystem. Nokia already said that it plans to pitch Windows Phone 7/Nokia as the "third ecosystem," which would indicate that MeeGo will not be a significant platform.

The netbook UI development has already been abandoned, and it appears that Nokia is simply polite and has not told Intel yet that it has no interest in MeeGo anymore. Would you buy a MeeGo phone, if its future is uncertain? In today's world, probably not. As devices are more connected to an ecosystem of other types of electronics, it will be even more unlikely that you buy such a device -- even as a backup device or for your young children as an emergency communication device.

Let's be realistic. MeeGo is dead.

Microsoft's big advantage and Nokia's problem
Nokia must have been extremely desperate, much more than what we have seen in public. In this alliance, Microsoft is taking the lion's share of the cooperation's benefit. As much as Microsoft said that it was happy with 2 million Windows Phone 7 units sold in Q4 2010, we know that Windows Mobile 6 still outsold the new platform. You can't sugarcoat the Windows Phone 7 performance so far: It has been a failure. We have grown tired of hearing Steve Ballmer tell us that user feedback has been fantastic and that the devices just need to get into customers' hands to see better sales. Sounds a bit like a Saab commercial: "People who test-drive a Saab usually buy one." OK, but how many people do you know who have bought a Saab? And wasn't Saab nearly shut down not too long ago?

Ballmer can talk about user feedback all day long: The problem is that Windows Phone 7 is not selling. Why? Windows Phone 7 is marketed wrong. It's a nice-to-have product without a positive lifestyle factor attached. It is not a must-have product. No one would complain if Windows Phone 7 was discontinued today.

With Nokia on board, Microsoft has an opportunity to get about 30 million Windows smartphones out into the world, every quarter. However, it is an opportunity that will need a lot of TLC to grow and make sense for both Nokia and Microsoft. The two companies have laid out a massive ecosystem approach that can work, but Microsoft will have to dramatically change its view of the smartphone market to have a shot at growth. And we will need to see more than just bold words in a presentation.

Microsoft's problem -- and now Nokia's problem -- is Microsoft's flawed marketing that has created a catastrophic perception of Windows Phone 7. Microsoft tried to be different by telling people that they don't have to really use their Windows Phone 7 devices and that is just a bad idea to be glued to their phones. The company completely missed the fact that consumers actually like to spend time with their phones. The impression of a device that will not encourage interaction is probably not a great sales driver. We at CTech believe that Microsoft's marketing has buried the market opportunity of the current generation of Windows Phone 7. The platform needs a complete relaunch.

Microsoft's opportunity has always been the Xbox 360 in mobile devices. So far, Xbox Live mobile has been only a sideshow. Dear Microsoft: Smartphones are entertainment devices. Have you guys ever thought about making Xbox Live content (and not just shared game data) seamlessly available to smartphones? You could get some ideas from Sony and the Android Market.

Microsoft's problem: Nokia's legacy
Nokia is essentially stuck with a smartphone platform that isn't exactly catering to what smartphone users want today. However, Microsoft's commitment to Nokia could easily alienate other handset manufacturers that are seeing much more success with Android anyway. Why would they deal with Microsoft and measly sales every quarter? They wouldn't.

Nokia may be Microsoft's only hope, but it's not a done deal, as Microsoft's Windows Phone 7 will need amazing hardware to attract attention. Competitive hardware isn't enough, and one more sensor or more pixels on the screen won't be enough, either. There are enough handset manufacturers that are copying the iPhone. Nokia needs to rethink the smartphone in a similar way that Apple did in 2006-2007. If you are a frequent CTech reader, the pitch may be getting old already, but I cannot reiterate enough that a next-generation smartphone cannot be anything less than the Seabird concept phone that was shown on Mozilla's Labs pages.

Nokia and Microsoft have to be realistic and admit that, given the resources the two companies have available, what has been shown so far is embarrassing. There is an opportunity for both to show the innovative power and creativity that has made the companies great. We haven't seen it yet, and now is the time to leverage this potential.

It's make-or-break time for both. However, even if the alliance will be successful for both companies, it is already clear that there can be only one winner. Nokia has lost the platform play and will simply be a handset manufacturer with a few additional assets. Microsoft will be the true winner, as it has an opportunity to keep Windows relevant in a world that is more and more mobile -- and right now does not even recognize Windows as a mobile platform.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

More from ConceivablyTech:

See a stock in this story you'd like to follow? Add it to My Watchlist, which will find all of our Foolish analysis on it.

Google, Intel, and Microsoft are Motley Fool Inside Value picks. Google is a Motley Fool Rule Breakers choice. Apple is a Motley Fool Stock Advisor selection. The Fool has written puts on Apple. The Fool owns shares of and has bought calls on Intel. Motley Fool Options has recommended buying calls on Intel and has recommended a diagonal call position on Microsoft. The Fool owns shares of Apple, Google, and Microsoft. Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools don't all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.


Read/Post Comments (23) | Recommend This Article (9)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On February 12, 2011, at 2:59 PM, jimmy4040 wrote:

    Bringing Elop in as CEO is like bringing in Mubarak to run for the Presidency of your country. If you're a big Nokia shareholder, use your IPhone to find the nearest bridge!

  • Report this Comment On February 12, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Henry3Dogg wrote:

    Ballmer is the winner. Not Microsoft. In the end this will make Microsoft's situation worse, not better, because they have will loose several other hardware makers to get Nokia.

    But in the short term, Ballmer looks good and keeps his job.

    Which is another reason why this is bad for Microsoft.

  • Report this Comment On February 12, 2011, at 4:28 PM, idanp wrote:

    I don't understand how this can be bad news for Microsoft.

    Microsoft will put bing in every device, it will increase its ecosystem, it will get help with localizing the OS to other languages, and much more.

    Nokia will probably fire lots of people reducing its expanses.

    In other words : it's going to be interesting.

    BTW, my next phone will probably be a Nokia with WP7.

  • Report this Comment On February 12, 2011, at 5:39 PM, techy46 wrote:

    Microsoft has to use Nokia and Qualcomm to demo a smart phone and tablet that deliver what HP showed from webOS in the Pre3 and TouchPad. Microsoft has to integrate the desktop, notebook, smartphone and tablet with their enterprise (Exchange, Sharepoint,etc) and home (XBox) ecosystems expanding the smart phone functionality to equal or greater than the larger counterparts. Intel will ultimately deliver the processor, Atom Medfield 22nm, to make this possible if Qualcomm isn't up to the task. Microsoft, Nokia and Intel have 9-12 months to deliver results.

  • Report this Comment On February 12, 2011, at 10:26 PM, Klippenstein wrote:

    I am getting tired of hearing people talk about Microsoft as a has-been company. I remember when IBM was the company to hate and then the has-been company. Have you checked IBMs financial performance lately? Its doing great. Have you checked Microsoft earnings lately? They are doing great and they don't spend all their after tax earnings buying back stock with one hand while they print employee options (issue stock) as though they have their own internal Federal Reserve (INTC, AMAT, CSCO, DELL and probably APPLE are hugely guilty of this. That, by the way, is why this first four have great earnings for a decade, never pay a dividend but see any increase in shareholder equity).

    That Apple can sell its music players for 10 or 20x what a basic mp3 player with similar music quality would cost still leaves me incredulous. Apple is clearly a master marketer Even so, if Apple and its products went away tonight some people would be very annoyed but the world tomorrow would operate much as it did today. In contrast, if Microsoft and its software were removed tonight, the world as we know it would grid to a halt. The problem we would have on our hands would make Y2K and the recent financial crisis look like childs play. That fact alone should stop the hyperbolie. If Apple and now Google can come in and take massive market share in smartphones within a year or two, this is a very fluid market. Yes, Microsoft needs to better market its products. But, I think you would agree, they now have the product in Windows 7 Phone. I think they can figure out the marketing ....

  • Report this Comment On February 12, 2011, at 11:46 PM, techy46 wrote:

    @klippenstein - They have to keep faning the Apple and Google fires because that's who they brought to the dance. They also love to antagonize AT&T, Intel and Microsoft because those are relatively predictable and stable thus they can't "trade" options on low momentum movements. We're starting to see cracks in Apple's curve because their products are easy to clone and manufacture at much lower margins. I think the smart phone and tablet are going to be reduce to commodities and grow up to both be mobile PCs which plays right in the Microsoft's court. The will be hundreds of browser, gamer and reader devices for playing in the cloud but little profits per device. All the noise is annoying.

  • Report this Comment On February 13, 2011, at 11:26 AM, LeoBix wrote:

    Commentators focus on OS, platform and ecosystem strategies and scenarios - but very little is said about the economic and political aspects of this business move:

    - Elop is a significant (7th largest) shareholder in Microsoft, i.e. Microsoft's interests are directly and indisputably his personal interests.

    - He holds 0 (zero) % shares in Nokia, i.e. has no reason to care about the company's long-term success (or failure). In fact, he has nothing to lose if it sinks.

    - At the time of his appointment to the current job, Microsoft was a direct competitor of Nokia in a number of areas: OS, applications, services. And indirect competitor even in hardware devices.

    These facts prompt some logical questions, like:

    1. Isn't the appointment of a major competitor shareholder a conflict of interest? By common business law, by EU antitrust regulations, or simply by internal corporate governance rules? (Or just by commonsense, if that exists?)

    2. The people who made that appointment (presumably Nokia's board) must have been aware of the above facts, and knowingly ignored the obvious conflict of interest. Whose legal advice did they trust on the matter and what responsibility do they bear?

    3. While debates on the wisdom of the Microkia deal are still raging (and there are plenty of pro- and con- arguments), one thing is beyond doubt: upon the deal announcement Nokia LOST, in a single day, an enormous chunk of share price and billions of market cap. Is this loss a good reason to hail and celebrate the deal as a 'success'? Who is the beneficiary of such 'success' - that amounts to billions of losses in a day? Is a CEO who presides over such a tragic loss doing a good job? For his employer, or? Who IS his actual employer?

  • Report this Comment On February 13, 2011, at 4:27 PM, jimmy4040 wrote:

    Klippenstein wrote:

    "Have you checked Microsoft earnings lately?"

    Have you checked MSFT share price lately? Your ten year return is about 1.53% annualized INCLUDING the dividend, or less than you would have made on virtually anything that wasn't a bank savings account.

    If Gates and Ballmer want to run the compnay based on their whims and fancies, go right ahead. Just take the company private. I know several investors of various comittment who own MSFT. Exactly NONE of them expect to make much money on their investment. Their goal is too simply avoid losing money, which MSFT almost always manages to avoid. As an investor this company makes utilities look dynamic!

  • Report this Comment On February 13, 2011, at 4:38 PM, jimmy4040 wrote:

    techy wrote:

    "I think the smart phone and tablet are going to be reduce to commodities and grow up to both be mobile PCs which plays right in the Microsoft's court".

    This is the "someday they'll see how great we are" argument that we hear so often.

    MSFT 10 years ago 28.50, today 27.25

    AAPL 10 years ago 9.25, today 356.85

    If this were a Little League game, or a title fight, they would have stopped it a long time ago.

    If tomorrow AAPL were to lose half it's value and at the same time MSFT doubled, it would still be a crushing loss for shareholders that could never be made up by future earnings.

    Verdict: MSFT, good business, horrible investment.

  • Report this Comment On February 13, 2011, at 8:26 PM, techy46 wrote:

    Nokia Corp. will get billions of dollars from Microsoft Corp. to ditch its current smart-phone software in favor of Windows Phone 7, Nokia CEO Stephen Elop said Sunday. Seems like there might be two winners? We pay you to dumo you're software R&D and you apy us for licenses. You win, we win.

  • Report this Comment On February 13, 2011, at 11:49 PM, Klippenstein wrote:

    @Jimmy4040

    "Have you checked Microsoft earnings lately?"

    Actually I have. Over the past 10 years their earnings have risen from .66 per share to 2.10 in 2010, a 318% rise in value. Over same period, their revenue has risen from 25B to 62B per year, a 247% rise. That means an annual increase of 12.27 percent (compounded).

    The problem your investors have is not that Microsoft's business and profits were not good, it is that they paid too much for the stock. Confession: I made the same mistake and share their pain ... because I did not understand the following: 10 years ago, the stock was trading at an average Price/Earnings (PE) of 45. In 2010 it traded at an average PE of 13. On next years higher earnings this PE goes down to 10. By any financial measure that is cheap, cheap, cheap. The people who are not buying Microsoft today are probably repeating the (inverse of) the mistake they made when they bought it 10 years ago.

    The problem your friends have is not with Microsoft's business earnings, it is with the sky high price they were willing to pay for the stock.

    Ballmer has actually been doing a fine job protecting and building Microsoft's business! Once the stock starts rising steadily (which I predict is any year now) Ballmer will get the thanks he deserves.

    On Microsoft being like a utility you are also right. Like a utility they are essential to IT as the world knows it today and will be for many years to come.

    P.S. I recommend tech46's post on bad media and Microsoft's product strategy.

  • Report this Comment On February 14, 2011, at 11:03 AM, jimmy4040 wrote:

    klippenstein:

    I think Judy Collins said it best:

    "Someday soon, I'm going with him, someday soon"

    MSFT IS a great company, it's just a lousy investment.

    I don't know why you're focusing on ten years ago. If you bought the company ONE year ago, it was a lousy investment 28.13 versus 27.11 today!

    Even if you had bought GE, you would have done better 15.70 versus 21.48

    Look, MSFT is simply indefensible as an investment, no matter what metric you use. Until Ballmer leaves, you will lose money every year, compared to the S&P or virtually any other sane strategy. The people who hold are hoping for the 15-20% pop that will occur the week Ballmer says he is steppng down.

  • Report this Comment On February 15, 2011, at 3:08 PM, Klippenstein wrote:

    @jimmy4040

    Firstly, when you compare MSFT stock price today with where it was 10 years ago, you must be aware that they have paid approximately $5.74 per share out in dividends. Doesn't change the comparison much, but lets be honest. Apple, by comparison, has paid no dividends, nothing to shareholders. You must also add these billions in onto Microsofts market cap when you are comparing (thats about 57B paid out to shareholders)

    Second, and more importantly Jimmy4040, I took the considerable trouble to explain all this to you above. Please take the time to read what I wrote carefully. If you don't understand, read it again.

    If you go out and pay $100 for a $1.00 candy bar, you should not blame the candy bar company. You should blame yourself for playing to much.

    People paid way to much in 1999, early 2000 for Microsoft (and a whole lot of other companies). Yet the company business has improved steadily from that point to today (as detailed above). Imagine buying Microsoft here at todays price and seeing it do about as well in the next ten years as it has in the past ten (again, business/earnings wise) add a PE mulitiple of 10 to the earnings you end up with and tell me what price Microsoft should reasonably be trading at.

    You must always think about the price you are playing for the business (its earnings). If you pay too much, you should never expect a return ... and don't blame the company if their business is growing just fine and at a steady pace (as is microsoft's).

  • Report this Comment On February 16, 2011, at 10:54 AM, jimmy4040 wrote:

    Klippenstein:

    You delightfully ignore the fact that almost alone among big cap tech, (excepting Cisco and Intel) MSFT declined over the last year also. Why didn't you adress that, instead of constantly speaking about ten years ago?

    If you would rather have 5.74 in dividends than a share price increase of approximately 60 times, than I guess you're new at this investing stuff (that doesn't even go into the taxable implications of dividends versus share appreciation)

    " Imagine buying Microsoft here at todays price and seeing it do about as well in the next ten years as it has in the past ten (again, business/earnings wise) add a PE mulitiple of 10 to the earnings you end up with and tell me what price Microsoft should reasonably be trading at."

    If Ballmer is still heading the company? I'm guessing in ten more years it will be worth about $25 a share, maybe less, based on it's performance in the last year.

    You're one of those people who say the price of MSFT versus other stocks reflects an irrational market. I go along with the old maxim that the market can stay irrational longer than you and I can stay solvent.

    Working for MSFT, is probably a terrific gig. Investing in it, is for the very old.

  • Report this Comment On February 16, 2011, at 11:46 AM, Klippenstein wrote:

    Sounds like you have made up your mind on this. If you want, leave me/us your email and lets check back in 5 years. If it grows its earnings at only 7.5% per year over 5 years, its PE would have come down to about 6If its PE stays at around 12, it stock price would be close to 40. Would this not suggest to your that the reasonable direction for the stock over the next few years is up.

    I think you are making two mistakes: One you have your eye on the rear view mirror of how the stock has declined for a decade... and extrapotating that trend. The other is that you are overly focussed on stock price movements which are, in the short term at least, unpredictable and often irrational (take the 2008/9 sell off for example).

    Anyway time will tell. Do you care to check back?

  • Report this Comment On February 16, 2011, at 4:24 PM, jimmy4040 wrote:

    "i think you are making two mistakes"

    Your comment is completely irrational. You keep talking about a decade, and yet never adress the point I made, namely not a decade but one year!!!!!

    MSFT trades like a public utility, with a bad dividend, or perhaps some other company with a fairly captive market.

    Stock price movements are neither unpredictable nor irrational in the majority of cases, and the larger cap companies are the most predictable of all. What is RB after all if not a predicting mechanism for future price based on growth? None of these companies pay a dividend, so the stock price is only a reflection of growth prospects and possible buyout speculation depending on the industry.

    It's your right to throw your money away anyway you choose. However every dollar you have put into MSFT since Ballmer took over has been a total waste, versus what you could have earned literally in almost any other stock.

    If Ballmer leaves tomorrow you will see a share price appreciation of 15-25%, almost immediately, that's how bad a job he has done. No matter what though, you will NEVER be able to make up the money lost by any investment over MSFT in the last ten years.

    Your ability to look at the performance of MSFT and Ballmer and to extrapolate that somehow things will be different in the future is nothing short of irrational.

    I will close with a story. In 1978, Kenny Norton and Larry Holmes fought one of the great heavyweight title fights of all time. Holmes won by a decision. As you may recall such fights were then broadcast closed circuit and hit free tv months later.

    My best friend had his 21st birthday party, on the night of the first free broadcast and he was a big Norton fan. He got plastered and needed two of us to help him walk back to the dorm. He ketp exhorting us to carry him faster because he was going to miss the replay. We, being sober and logical, asked him what's the big deal, you already know the outcome. He replied with a clarity that only drunks can muster "Yeah, but you'd sh*t yourself if Norton won on the replay, wouldn't you!"

    I think of that comment often, when someone tells me that something which has been decided to finality in one direction, coulld somehow turn out different in the future.

    Thanks for the reply.

  • Report this Comment On February 16, 2011, at 4:39 PM, TheDumbMoney wrote:

    jimmy4040, you're either irrational or you're a shill. You are absolutely conflating OPERATIONAL business performance with STOCK performance.

    Operationally, MSFT has grown something like 12%+ in the last ten years. That is phenomenal for such a large company. Period. You have no answer to that. And it's growth has actually accelerated in the last four years. Period.

    MSFT's stock price performance over the last ten years is utterly meaningless to anyone who remotely cares about value investing (which maybe you don't), coming as it did after MSFT sold at a totally inflated P/E during the dotcom bust. The only difference between MSFT and a CIEN after 2000 is that MSFT actually had a powerful busienss, so instead of dropping like a stone its stock price treaded water until earnings caught up. Well now they finally have.

    Do you think MSFT stock is going to go nowhere from it's now-low P/E if MSFT keeps growing at a 12% cagr? Do you think that MSFT's P/E is going to go to 2 while the rest of the market's P/E goes to 20??? Don't be absurd. That's what it is. It's absurd. MSFT is an elephant and is not Apple or Google (which I also like), but it is a growing company. Why don't you actually look at a balance sheet or a cash flow statement for the past three years?

    Then again, don't. I could care less. I hated MSFT as an investment ten years ago. Ten years ago I was buying MO and XOM. Why? Because they were cheap, on actual numbers, as opposed to emotions. Now MSFT is cheap. So can the emotional nonsense about Ballmer and go look at the actual financial statements. What you are saying is exactly equivalent to what people were saying to justify BUYING MSFT stock ten years ago, precisely when it was a bad idea.

  • Report this Comment On February 17, 2011, at 12:53 PM, jimmy4040 wrote:

    I just don't understand the things you say.

    "MSFT's stock price performance over the last ten years is utterly meaningless to anyone who remotely cares about value investing (which maybe you don't), coming as it did after MSFT sold at a totally inflated P/E during the dotcom bust"

    Value investing is BASED on stock price! That's why Apple is not a value investment right now, and wouldn't be until it declines at least 20% or so

    You keep harping on ten years ago for what reaosn I don't know. I have asked you repeatedly to address the fact that MSFT was a bad investment ONE year ago, but you just ignore that.

    Ok you win. You're right and everybody else is wrong.

    I'll give back the 78% I've made in oil stocks the last year, and the 42% I've made in GE, and the anywhere from 18% to 67% I've made on various Rule Breaker stocks and instead.take my 2% loss that I should have had investing in MSFT in the same time frame.

    I'll give it all to charity. Thanks for making the scales fall from my eyes and see that share price is nothing!

  • Report this Comment On February 17, 2011, at 9:57 PM, jimmy4040 wrote:

    I am also compelled to ask exactly when is the MSFT uprising going to occur?

    Year to date, the bland boring S&P 500 is up about 6%, while MSFT is down over 2%.

    I know I know, it can't continue this way, and besides you have the privilege of owning a great company. who cares if it ever makes YOU any money!

  • Report this Comment On February 21, 2011, at 10:45 AM, Klippenstein wrote:

    @dumberthanafool

    very well said! To all who know a drip about investing, your posting should settle the matter. Thankyou!

  • Report this Comment On February 21, 2011, at 4:57 PM, jimmy4040 wrote:

    Klip:

    Surprised to find you still here. You may want to join the discussion on the MSFT board.

    I will however point out the obvious to you. You and dumber use intrinsic anaylysis in which you take yesterday's performance numbers and extrapolate future growth.

    For instance:

    "Do you think MSFT stock is going to go nowhere from it's now-low P/E if MSFT keeps growing at a 12% cagr?"

    Yet, you scream like a pre-schooler on a 3 vaccination day if I use the same method to determine future stock price based on past performance. LOL

    WHAT? That's unheard of, illegal, and immoral. You're not allowed to do that!!!!!!

    You must be a rookie, or a business school freshman, or any of the other taunts that have been thrown my way.

    To each his own!

  • Report this Comment On February 21, 2011, at 7:22 PM, Klippenstein wrote:

    jimmy0404:

    Good luck with your investment results.

  • Report this Comment On February 21, 2011, at 9:16 PM, jimmy4040 wrote:

    Klip:

    and to you yours. Thanks for the discussion.

Add your comment.

DocumentId: 1440467, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 4/18/2014 3:16:57 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement