Not that history is bad to look at, but taking a look too far back really can't tell you alot.
I'm a believer in the value of both fundamental and technical analysis. But using the past to determine the future is, as the the saying goes, like "driving by looking in the rear-view mirror".
That said, there is no question that technical analysis has value, because it provides clues to the recent psychological behavior of investors. Psychological trends tend to play out over periods of time, so the value is useful, but limited to very specific periods.
Fundamental analysis has value because it provides a good indication of how well a company is managed, which gives an investor clues about how it may be managed in the future.
That said, ORCL has consistently proved to have good long term management. When you analyze it on a stand alone basis, it has provided an excellent return on investment over the long term. I saw about a tenfold increase in my primary investment (which I cashed out), and still have a gain of 200% on the remainder (not counting the money I've made trading it).
I consider Ellison to be, based on his personality, somewhat coarse. But I don't know him or socialize with him. On a professional level, he has consistently shown leadership, vision, and a strong sense for providing investors with value. Primarily because he is one of the largest investors in his company.
That said, the overall market is dictating much of the stock action that companies are seeing right now. I still consider ORCL one of the leaders in its field and I expect that position will grow and consolidate, which will only benefit the company and its investors.
On the other hand, I can still see how some short term shocks may lead to hiccups.
Options may play a long term role in reallocating cash, but as someone here stated - no more than salaries would. Salaries would be more transparent, but less of an incentive to drive performance. |
