• On The Insider: Robert Downey Jr Injured on the Set
October 13, 2008 4:00 AM PDT

So much for that idea: Tech stocks have fallen from 1999 to 2008

Posted by Declan McCullagh
  • Print

[Caption: If you bought tech stocks in October 1999 and sold them in October 2008, you probably lost money. Note this chart does not include Google, which held its IPO in 2004. Source: finance.yahoo.com]

It's true that stocks generally ascend in the long run. But last week's stock market crash is a potent reminder of the corollary to that rule: the long run can be a long way off.

Our review of the share prices of large tech companies show that, for the most part, they've plummeted back to where they were nine or ten years ago. This means that, in general, anyone who bought shares of Microsoft or Intel during that time has lost money.

Once high-flying companies like Amazon.com, Dell, Yahoo, and Sun Microsystems have plummeted back to earth. Ones that noticeably appreciated compared to this time in 1999 include Apple, Research In Motion, and Hewlett Packard; SAP and IBM ended up sideways.

The Nasdaq Composite stock market index closed Friday at 1,649.51, down more than 1,000 points from October 1999. It's now returned to levels first reached in the boom days of autumn 1997.

The numbers are even worse if you take into account inflation, meaning the U.S. dollar's devaluation during that time.

A dollar went a lot further in the 1990s than today: U.S. government figures say consumer prices today are about 37 percent higher than at the time the Nasdaq first reached its current level; alternate calculations put them at closer to 100 percent. (Remember that gas prices were at about $1.25 per gallon in autumn 1997, and single-family home prices at the time were generally less than half what they were as of this summer.)

Those numbers, by the way, are adjusted for stock splits, inverse splits, and dividends.

A 43 percent drop in the Nasdaq Composite index from its 52-week high is a serious downturn, especially when coupled with the bursting of the housing bubble and a virtual seizure of some credit markets. But it's a long way away from the Great Depression, which resulted in the stock market losing almost 90 percent of its value.

Then again, saying that a market crash isn't as bad as the worst economic catastrophe in recent history is rather like saying that getting shot by a .38 caliber pistol isn't quite as bad as getting shot with a .45 magnum. In a blog post last Thursday, economist Nouriel Roubini of New York University warned that "severe damage is done and one cannot rule out a systemic collapse and a global depression."

It's still too early to know how the dip in tech shares will affect Silicon Valley and other technology firms. Investor distaste for stocks makes it more difficult for companies to raise money that way; it also means that the stock option-fueled economy of the Bay Area slows down. We reported last Thursday on how tech companies are dealing with the financial hurricane; the Wall Street Journal also noted that while Silicon Valley may seem relatively insulated, some companies are putting their IT purchases on hold.

As of this weekend, there was some hope for disheartened investors: U.S. stock futures hinted at a 3 percent rise for the Nasdaq in advance of the market opening on Monday. Still, in this new era of stock-market revulsion and newfound appreciation for cash (and perhaps even gold), much of the recent news is far from promising.

"Start-ups that don't have traction and don't have that kind of hockey-stick-like growth on Alexa or Compete or whatever are going to have a really difficult time raising an additional round of funding," Digg founder Kevin Rose told us in a recent interview. "I think that a lot of the advice going out there to start-ups right now is to pare back a little bit and get into a mode that you can survive in."

Technology-related initial public offerings in the third quarter fell from 44 in 2007 to a mere 10 this year. Growth in cell phone sales may be moderating. No wonder angel investor Ron Conway warned his portfolio companies last week to cut expenses, fast.

Click here for ongoing coverage from CNET News, "Tough times for tech"

Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan.
Recent posts from Business Tech
IPOs a thing of the past?
IBM to start-up: Industry vet responds to recession
Intel, Hitachi to develop solid-state drives
Report: AMD Phenom II chips echo Intel's i7
Markets tumble on recession news
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 16 comments
by aztracker1 October 13, 2008 5:46 AM PDT
How about a review comparing today vs. early 2002 when everything was tanking last time around?
Reply to this comment
by Kwasiowusu October 13, 2008 7:28 AM PDT
Yup.
Or even comparing Sept 26th '99 to Sept 26 2008, when the Dow was still over 11,000 and higher than the '99 level?
With stocks up sharply today, nad likely to end this week sharply up, I am willing to bet that a like to like Dow Oct 18 '99 comparison to Oct 18 2008 comparion will be quite different from the above figures.
This snapshot is not too relevant.
by sachingorde October 13, 2008 9:22 AM PDT
If you factor in the multiple splits in certain stocks, that will give more accurate picture for comparison.
Reply to this comment
by swrobel October 13, 2008 11:35 AM PDT
Why would you not show the change as a %?
Reply to this comment
by bomber889 October 13, 2008 11:40 AM PDT
Hmm, I guess this title is a little misleading. It should probably read "Tech Stocks Have Never Made It Back From 1999."

Too much doom and gloom. It makes it sound like everything is horrible in tech (it never really recovered). However, using his numbers, it looks like things are pretty good for these companies --- just do the math, if you invested equally in all the companies listed above on October 10, 1999 and sold them last Friday, you would have been up over 63% --- a positive return or 5.6% year-over-year, which is better than the average inflation for this period (2.71% --- http://inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_Rate/HistoricalInflation.aspx) (so I don?t agree with the author on the inflation).

As for comparing the lows of today vs. the lows of 2002, let?s try comparing the highs of 2000 to the highs of last year. First, you can see that tech never regained its losses from that bubble (NASDAQ was still down 44.46% on October 9, 2007 - the Dow?s highest day - from its high of 5,048 on March 10, 2000), but you still would have made over 33% gain if you invested in the companies above and sold them from peak to peak (now this is 4.2% y-o-y, which is less than the returns above, though better than inflation, and still pretty good return --- though I guess not that great for the risk level of this sector, but anyway...).

I don?t know what comparing October 18, 1999 vs. October 18, 2008 (which is actually a Saturday and there would be no trading on this date --- so, let?s just call it Friday the 17th) would accomplish. Would it just show that this week was better than last week, and that this week was better than that of 9 years ago? I guess. But how does that really matter? I guess we could go back and compare random periods of time when these companies were at their highs vs. random days of lows. That does nothing but show volatility (and I guess it also shows how overvalued some firms were in the last bubble --- remember when most investors thought companies like pets.com were worth billions of dollars).

It seems that the bottom line is tech [market value] has never been the same as it was in the nineties. However, if you had invested in these firms, your portfolio would be up for the decade.

Here?s the numbers I used (sorry for the formatting, that?s what happens converting a table to text though):

Oct 10 1999 Oct 10 2008 Mar 10 2000 Oct 9 2007
Amazon 78.62 6.25 -28.45% 66.88 95.32 42.52%
Apple 18.49 96.80 423.53% 31.44 167.86 433.91%
Cisco 33.28 17.23 -48.23% 68.19 33.08 -51.49%
Dell 39.88 13.29 -66.68% 51.25 27.91 -45.54%
eBay 17.83 16.73 -6.17% 24.16 39.1 61.84%
EMC 31.87 10.12 -68.25% 63.64 21.81 -65.73%
HP 26.59 37.00 39.15% 51.58 52.11 1.03%
IBM 86.55 87.75 1.39% 97.2 116.5 19.86%
Intel 33.59 15.19 -54.78% 55.01 25.27 -54.06%
MSFT 39.03 21.50 -44.91% 42.53 29.66 -30.26%
Oracle 11.03 16.68 51.22% 40.81 22.59 -44.65%
RIM 5.46 55.28 912.45% 22.5 115.52 413.42%
Sun 90.00 4.80 -94.67% 188.38 23.84 -87.34%
SAP 32.55 33.87 4.06% 78.61 56 -28.76%
Yahoo 44.53 12.29 -72.40% 89.03 28.37 -68.13%

NASDAQ 2,816.52 1,649.51 -41.43% 5,048.62 2,803.91 -44.46%
Dow 10,470.25 8,451.19 -19.28% 9,928.82 14,164.53 42.66%
S&P 1,301.65 899.22 -30.92% 1,395.07 1,565.15 12.19%
Reply to this comment
by bomber889 October 13, 2008 12:07 PM PDT
         Oct 10 1999    Oct 10 2008
Amazon   78.62          56.25       -28.45%
Apple    18.49          96.80       423.53%
Cisco    33.28          17.23       -48.23%
Dell     39.88          13.29       -66.68%
eBay     17.83          16.73        -6.17%
EMC      31.87          10.12       -68.25%
HP       26.59          37.00        39.15%
IBM      86.55          87.75         1.39%
Intel    33.59          15.19       -54.78%
MS       39.03          21.50       -44.91%
Oracle   11.03          16.68        51.22%
RIM       5.46          55.28       912.45%
Sun      90.00           4.80       -94.67%
SAP      32.55          33.87         4.06%
Yahoo    44.53          12.29       -72.40%

NASDAQ    2,816.52      1,649.51       -41.43%
Dow      10,470.25      8,451.19       -19.28%
S&P       1,301.65        899.22       -30.92%
by bomber889 October 13, 2008 12:17 PM PDT
My Bad --- silly formatting: Try this:

Oct 10 1999 to Oct 10 2008
Amazon -28.45%
Apple 423.53%
Cisco -48.23%
Dell -66.68%
eBay -6.17%
EMC -68.25%
HP 39.15%
IBM 1.39%
Intel -54.78%
MS -44.91%
Oracle 51.22%
RIM 912.45%
Sun -94.67%
SAP 4.06%
Yahoo -72.40%

NASDAQ -41.43%
Dow -19.28%
S&P -30.92%
by buggermenot October 13, 2008 11:45 AM PDT
Either your analysis or explanation is overly simplistic.

The only way I can read the article is to assume I held these stocks during this time, so what would I have to show for it (splits, dividends...)? How about versus nontech stocks. How about giving percentages instead of difficult to compare $s?
Reply to this comment
by declan00 October 13, 2008 9:19 PM PDT
The article noted that the table accounted for splits and dividends. I also included the DJIA and S&P for nontech stocks. You're right that I probably should have included percentages, though.
by bp92 October 13, 2008 3:42 PM PDT
In the time frame referenced above, here are the splits totals:

ebay 8:1 (2:1 thrice)
RIM 6:1 (2:1, 3:1)
Yahoo 2:1
HP 2:1
SAP 3:1
SUN 1:4 (reverse split)
Oracle 4:1 (2:1, 2:1)
Cisco 2:1
EMC 2:1
Microsoft 2:1
Reply to this comment
by declan00 October 13, 2008 9:20 PM PDT
The table accounts for splits, reverse splits, and dividends.
by amurto October 13, 2008 5:58 PM PDT
I don't you mentioning stock splits. For example RIM split their stock by 3 a few years ago. So the $60 stock now is closer to a $180 when compared to 10 years ago.
Reply to this comment
by declan00 October 13, 2008 9:20 PM PDT
Excerpt from the article (did you actually read it?): "Those numbers, by the way, are adjusted for stock splits, inverse splits, and dividends."
by DarkHawke October 13, 2008 10:36 PM PDT
Isn't your time frame too narrow? Like by ten years? I've heard it said that stock investments will always appreciate over a TWENTY year period, even if the twenty year period you choose includes the REAL great crash that signaled the Depression. What do the numbers look like if you go from 1988 to 2008?

All this apart from the fact that the Dow just had its largest single day gain ever today. Great timing on this article, eh?
Reply to this comment
by kevin-p October 14, 2008 5:06 AM PDT
Two words: diversified portfolio.
Reply to this comment
by gochichi October 14, 2008 10:30 AM PDT
Yeah, that only goes to show you how totally imaginary the stock market is.

Microsoft is a great company, they spend a little and make a lot... how that's not a good stock is beyond me. The stock market is a bunch of "moods" put together and not based on reality whatsover.

AOL-Time Warner anyone? A couple of BANKS (banks, you know, the ones that are so unbeliavably irresponsible as to go bankrupt by following their own advice) said, "Apple stock is no good" and the Apple stock took a good dip. Then a couple of days later another couple of banks said, "that prediction was wrong, Apple stock is going to still do great". So the stock recovered a bit. Nevermind the actuality of the company, nevermind that the whole technology of which iPhones are made from is already paid for and costs are low and they are going world-wide with them, nevermind anything the actual company is doing... it's a bunch of moods, it's investor PMS that has stocks all messed up. World-wide iPods, iPhones, and computers all three of which are high margin.

I see no reality to any of this, Microsoft is for sure a great company and since they've been raking in the cash since 1999, I simply don't see how that stock could be worth less. I know that Vista is supposedly a "flop" but when you spend $1.00 developing something and make $1000.00 from that $1.00, is that really a flop? I really don't get it. The stock market is bogus, it's junk and the whole system needs to change so that it's based on some sort of actual assett.

Communal gambling= stock market... really? Is this system for the common good? I mean, I get that the speculator crowd is all over it, but it's ludicrous for the rest of us.

Poor Intel, poor Microsoft... the fact that this system is broken weighs heavily on them. I mean seriously, could Intel be doing a better job at supplying the planet with chips? That stock is down? My goodness. If there were any merit to stock market prices, both of those companies FOR SURE would be worth more year over year. For sure, Apple's stock price wouldn't depend on some junk-bank's ill-formed vision. I mean, c'mon... these banks, they've literally proven their incompetence to us, and we're still basing our actions on their "sage" advice?

Everyone, just a get a grip of yourselves... quit your mass hysteria and open your eyes to the fact, that in fact, there are no facts out of which to base your hysteria. Your hysterical actions are the only thing causing hysteria.

As to stocks "crashing further", I doubt they will... the fickle, hysterical types went crazy and lost a bunch of money in the process. Those that stayed put, are the type to stay put, and they'll continue to stay put because they are the staying put kind. If you're gonna jump out of windows over market fluctuations you may as well do so now, so that we can move on.
Reply to this comment
advertisement
Click Here

In the news now

A tech veteran responds to the recession

LogLogic's Patricia Sueltz heard a clear message about the economy from investors, but she already knows a thing or two about navigating through tough times.


Obama's AG pick on privacy

Eric Holder has criticized the warrantless wiretapping program, but his views on other online policies may not be that far from those of the Bush administration.


Resource center from CNET News sponsors
Business. Ready.
Sony VAIO® Professional PCs.

Click Here!
A new grade in mobility demands a new kind of notebook. And Sony delivers.Tough, portable and featuring up to 7.5 hours of battery life! VAIO® Professional notebooks are built for business. Learn more.

Click Here!
Built tough for business.

Learn more about the rigorous quality testing Sony puts its notebooks through.

Protect your investment.

Find out why VAIO® tech support recently won a Laptop Editors' Choice Award, July 2008.

Long battery life.

Up to 7.5 hours of battery life! See how VAIO® PCs will keep you productive longer when on the road.

Travel light

Check out our ultraportable line-up, starting at 2.87 lbs.

PCs for every need.

Find out which VAIO® notebook is right for you.

About Business Tech

Your destination for the latest news on enterprise-level information technology, from chip research and server design to software issues including programming, open source and patents.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Business Tech topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right