Perseverance Can Reverse The Dilemma.

In theory, in equity market At last, every industry will have a comeback day. Buffett once asked shareholders of his company to make a small test: "if you plan to eat hamburgers for life without raising cattle, do you want beef prices to be higher or lower? Obviously, the question is answered by itself, the lower the price the better.

Take today's most popular Apple Corp as an example: in the past 2010 financial year, Apple Corp's revenue reached US $65 billion 200 million and net profit reached US $14 billion, which was 152% and 170% higher than that in the 2009 fiscal year. Apple Corp's share price has also reached a new high. At the end of April 2011, its stock price was $350 / share, and its market value reached US $323 billion 800 million, the highest IT market in the world. But before and after 1995, Apple Corp was on the verge of bankruptcy, and its share price even fell below $1 / share. When Jobs returned to Apple Corp in 1997, Apple Corp's shares hovered around $5 / share. After 13 years of Jobs's return, Apple Corp's share price rose 70 times.

Apple Inc dilemma Where is the reverse? The official answer is: "Apple Corp is committed to bringing the best user experience to customers through innovative hardware, software, external devices, services and Internet services." In other words, people are talking about "innovation" now. But the question is coming again. Did Apple Corp begin to "innovate" after the millennium? In fact, Apple Corp has been "innovating" since its listing in 1980s, but the "innovation" before 1995 was actually a failure. This is also the key reason for Jobs's first run away. For example, the apple Lisa computer, named after Jobs's daughter, is the world's first personal computer that combines the graphical user interface with the mouse. But in 1989, Apple Corp threw thousands of unsold Lisa computers into the garbage dump in Utah.

Apple Corp's success stories Investment Angle analysis, in fact, is the dilemma of "the Lilium also has the spring" reverses the classical case. What Apple Corp really deserves to learn is "fighting repeatedly and persevering". "Innovation" is only a vague concept, because not only is Apple Corp "innovation", but NOKIA is not "innovative"? Ten years ago, the latter was far superior to the former. If you studied NOKIA company ten years ago and studied Apple Corp today, you might not exist after ten years. Only the "persevering" company can reverse the dilemma.

Let's look at the two A share cases: also in 1997, the stock price of Changhong in Sichuan had risen to 66 yuan / share, so what's the stock price today? The relative price is less than the 1/10 of the year, and the other is the central enterprise, China COSCO, which has gone through a super roller coaster since its listing in 2007, and its profits and losses are at the top of both sides. Now the stock price is just the same as the original stock. In the past two years, the central enterprises' economic value added (EVA) ranking is bottom.

In 1997, Apple Corp's economic value added (EVA) was definitely a huge negative number, because Apple Corp was on the verge of collapse at that time; in 1997, Sichuan's Changhong economic added value (EVA) was definitely the first in the A share market, and the Chinese ocean economic value added (EVA) in 2007 was also positioned to be the top of the central enterprises and A shares. Therefore, the stock market is always an equation of multiple solutions, and the case of "ups and down" is going to be staged. The key lies in "perseverance", and we must not avoid it.