So, the analysts are having a field day explaining that HP doesn't really have a chance, and probably Meg hasn't done a good job, and shareholders are still"holding the bag."
So I checked a few things for the 'big four in the valley in 2001"
HP Intel Cisco Sun
Today $36.87 $34.11 $25.01 disappeared without a trace
Feb 9, 2001 just at the start of the dot.com meltdown, 18 mo's into Carly Fiorina's tenure at HP
$33.50 $34.31 $29.86
Chambers has managed Cisco since 1995, kind of a wunderkind in the Valley, stock down 16%. Haven't seen a lot of articles saying, "pack it in, big boy--the shareholders are sore"
Andy Grove handed off Intel to Barrett before 2000, but hung around a while. Then Otellini and now the new guy. Stock, virtually flat. Haven't seen anyone gouging Intel for being in PC's, or mismanaged
Just before Hurd got caught with his pants down (so to speak), lying and cheating and selling out HP futures by gutting R and D, failing to make capital investments, and incurring huge penalties (did you see the recent judgment for illegalities in Germany for $60M in cheating fees?), HP stock did hit $53.90, true. But as soon as the word was out, HP stock plummeted, and after the Belgian what's his name, Meg had a lot of cleanup to do. So from 2001 until now for HP, the stock is UP a modest 10%
It really gets tiresome to read the same old stories from the same old analysts about how bad HP is, was, and always will be, when in fact the results are looking pretty good on balance to this observer.
No, this is not your 1000% growth stock--no $10B, 40B, or 100B company can be, but it is solid today, and it hasn't been for a long time. We're fortunate, I think, that the luster is starting to show