I just read this article: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/why-tim-cook-is-like-steve-ballmer/
For those of you who can’t be bothered clicking the link and reading through it, here’s the gist:
- Cook and Ballmer both get criticised for poor stock performance of Apple and Microsoft respectively
- Both companies actually have significantly increased revenue and profit during the tenure of Tim and Steve
Here’s my immediate reaction to this
- Stock price is only partially controlled by company performance
- Both companies are often in the press, both positive and negative often somewhat based on sentiment (no press is objective…and that’s coming from a guy who works at a tabloid…)
- Given the fact they are well known they will usually also attract small mom&pop “investors” who tend to be a bit more susceptible to influence from press rather than financial fundamentals
Something to think about….