<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>In a hot economy selling computers is a no-brainer. Why do you think that computer stocks lead the market? Because people think that all the time business is booming it will buy more computers and individuals will have more disposable income to buy them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Which has little to do with the real point of my statement which was that for JB to say <I>"He [Jobs] may be a Millinair(sic) but Big Bill is a billionaire and they both started at roughly the same time. So this notion that he is somehow a great (as opposed to mediocre) CEO is just more myth on the part of the new church."</I> is silly. Since Bill Gates has more money than another CEO then the other CEO is thus mediocre? That means every other CEO besides Bill Gates is mediocre because they all have less money than him. Surely you don't think that this is the case?<P>But even if you wanted to make the claim that you did about my side comment, I would say that profitably selling computers in the last few years hasn't been a no-brainer. We keep hearing about how hardware margins are shrinking and the growth is really in services, internet infrastructure, and servers. All of which are areas where Apple has virtually no presence and yet they are still doing well financially in the personal computer market. <P>Compaq is having lots of trouble and had to replace their CEO, IBM is having to move away from retail for their PCs due to the financial difficulties that unit is having, HP's personal computer performance is pretty blah, and then Apple, Gateway and Dell seem to be doing well in that market. So while its still a good place to be, it isn't quite the no-brainer that you make it out to be. <P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Apple was at death's door when Jobs returned.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>If Apple was at death's door (with PeterB I suppose? View image: /infopop/emoticons\icon_wink.gif ) then I would say that makes its successes of late rather impressive and speaks pretty well for Steve Jobs.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Few people were willing to take a risk with it when almost every other computer stock was appreciating like gangbusters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>If your point here is that Apple had a relatively easier time than other companies might have in being such a successful stock in 1998 and 1999 because of its valuation at the time being rather poor, I would refer you to your above comment that apple was at death's door and so there were legitimate reasons why the stock was poorly valued. So while from a numerical standpoint, it is true that higher percentage gains are easier to achieve with a relatively pessimistic valuation, it would also seem that the causes of that poor valuation- all the problems at Apple which you alluded to above- would mean that it was a rather tough task to pull off and so those percentage gains are still rather impressive.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What you don't take into account was that Apple stock was around $80 five years ago.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Incorrect. Specifically it closed at 36.5625 on 12/2/94, five years ago exactly. But giving you the benefit of the doubt and going back over the last six years, the highest daily close of Apple's stock between 1/1/94 and the 12/31/97 was 50.125 on 6/21/95, not even close to $80. No splits during that time period. <P>The reason why I don't take that into account is because it is irrelevent to this discussion. If you wanted to discuss Apple stock in the nineties it would matter, but we are only talking about Apple stock as it relates to the current Steve Jobs' era since that is the topic at hand and so stock performance under Spindler or Amelio is rather irrelevent.<P> <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Over any period but the immediate past Apple stock is outperformed by every index and many other stocks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <P>Well, I'll assume that you mean the last two to three years or a lesser amount of time by "the immediate past". Again, the reason why I mention that time period is that the topic is <u>What do you think of Steve Jobs?</u> so Apple's stock performance over other periods of time than that is irrelevent to this discussion.<P>You also exaggerate a bit on Apple's poor performance in the past. Since you mentioned Apple's price 5 years ago, I looked up how it has done relative to the Dow, S&P 500, and the Nasdaq over that span which happens to be one of the worst possible time blocks to pick for Apple stock. Comparing the numbers for each from 12/2/94 to 12/2/99 it turns out that the Dow has gone up 194.7%, Apple has gone up 201.4%, the S&P 500 has gone up 210.8%, and the Nasdaq 363.4%. So a little bit better than the Dow (<u>Outperformed by every index did you say?</u>), a little less than the S&P and a fair amount less than Nasqaq. So while Apple has not been a great performer, it hasn't been that terrible either, especially when you consider that since it was a mid to large cap stock far earlier than most tech or Nasdaq stocks, it didn't have the percentage growth potential of the smaller stocks.<P>But more specifically, I was responding to this claim: <I>"Apple stock has gone up since he came back to lead the troops? Sure. But check the Nasdaq, in the past 3 years what high-tech stock hasn't?"</I><P>Perhaps a better reply to the above overgeneralization might have been to compare Apple to the Nasdaq and to the other major personal computer boxmakers over the three year span this fellow mentioned. I chose figures for a two year span since Gil Amelio resigned in July of 97, and Steve Jobs was actually named interim CEO in September of 97, so doing two years includes only time for which Jobs was CEO, a three year span would include too much of Amelio's regime. The amounts these stocks have gone up from their close on 12/2/97 to the close on 12/2/99 (adjusting for splits of course):<P>Apple 594.1% <BR>Gateway 420.3% <BR>Dell 307.1% <BR>Nasdaq 114.9%<BR>IBM 91.3%<BR>HP 64.7% <BR>S&P 500 45.0% <BR>Dow 37.7%<BR>Compaq -18.4%<P>Even considering that Dell is _the_ premier stock of the mid- to late- nineties and that Gateway has been doing extremely well too, Apple still comes out on top.<P>Anyway, trying to refute the claim that Apple stock has done about the same under Steve Jobs as the rest of the Nasdaq has done or as well as the other personal computer makers have done is just as ignorant a statement as a mac user saying that a G4 450 outperforms an Athlon 750, its just not true.<P>Cheers,<BR>-EriMac<P>[Edit-UBB]<P>[This message has been edited by EriMac (edited December 03, 1999).]