Quote:
yeah, that slap on microsoft's wrist just sent our economy into a tailspin...what a joke. The prosecution of MSFT wasn't the pin prick to the bubble that was the stock market, it was the lack of real earnings by those overvalued stocks.
Guess that awful government "blunder" of going after the unfair trade practices of MSFT is what has allowed MSFT to split twice since the government's case was first brought... they were so cruel weren't they?
|
Talking about needing an "education", splitting stocks means nothing in the context of this discussion. Microsoft's stock is still below what it was when the government brought suit and greatly below what it was when the 1st verdict was rendered. Microsoft issued a 2 for 1 split on March 26, 1999 and another 2 for 1 split on February 14th, 2003. So if I owned 1 stock on March 25, 1999 and held on to it I would own 4 stocks today. On March 24, 1999 that one stock was worth approximately 178.13. When I last checked the Microsoft site the stock was valued at 26.24. So the stock I purchased for 178.13 on 3/25/1999 is now worth only about 104.96. So I would have lost about 41% of my investment. Now consider that Microsoft stock has recovered from the lows when the verdict hit in 2000, and you can see that this had a huge effect. Considering at the time that Microsoft was trading places with CISCO as the company whose stock had the most outstanding value, this was a huge hit to the stock market.
Now Microsoft did not receive a "slap on the wrist" in the 1st trial. No they were ordered to be broken up into separate companies. The decision was ever bit as harse if not more so than was forced on AT&T several decades ago when it was forced to break up. This is not what the sentence ended up being, thanks a large part to the fairness of the Bush administration.
But what was Microsoft's crime? Well 1st of all, Bill Gates was just too damn honest and didn't bribe the administration as did his competitors who were getting their collective butts kicked. Make no mistake that Gates was and still is a ruthless businessman. However he does have an ingrained sense of honesty that initially kept him from forming the multibillion dollar political pacts that his competitors did.
But what was Microsoft's big crime. Well according to the official trial document it was selling their product too cheaply. That's it in a nutshell. Selling a product too cheaply. Damn if that isn't a crime. Doesn't it suck not having to pay a couple of hundred dollars more for your PC? Well you may think it does, but most Americans would think that was a bunch of BS, and rightfully so. But Clinton made millions pressing this meritless case for no other reasson than to line his own pockets at the expense of millions of Americans. This was nothing but pandering to big businesses willing to spend a lot of money to get their way.
As for your "negative trend", call it whatever you will it is purposefully misleading and smacks highly of spin doctoring. I don't need nor want any lecturing on the art of deception, thank you very much.