Bad analogy at all fronts, with all due respect.

Let me be clear on this, none of them is Google. First, GOOG didn't go public in 98'. Second, a lot more important, GOOG went public with 1 billion sales. Everyone knows it's a super successful business, great model and great execution. The only argument is the valuation. None of the 3 candidates deserves such high praise that he/she is a great president for sure, only question is how great he/she will be in history. If that's the case, there won't be any campaign at all.

To say Obama's plan showed you how he would get everything he promised done is just wishful thinking, to say the least. If you want an analogy in investment, I can give a few perspective in my opinion. You can consider Obama a Broadvision, or a WebMed, or a STEM. Every single one of them promised to revolutionize the field they are in, portal technology/internet+healthcare/stem cell, just like Obama's rosy picture to change politics once in all. Every single one of them received high recognition all over the market and industry. They were all handsomely rewarded with at least 1000% return in one year, at least. They all ended up with 99.99% loss after the bubble busted. You know why? EXECUTION.

Old is not always bad, just like utilitties, energies, materials, they were all beat down during the tech bubble, but what about now?

所有跟帖： 

• Sorry, this is reply to alex:) -Warsteiner- ♂ (0 bytes) () 02/22/2008 postreply 09:24:59

• using 1998 before google going public is the point -alex1234- ♂ (981 bytes) () 02/22/2008 postreply 09:45:01

• Then it would be terrible investment, to put all your eggs -Warsteiner- ♂ (394 bytes) () 02/22/2008 postreply 09:52:02

• I guess whether it's an terrible investment depends -alex1234- ♂ (549 bytes) () 02/22/2008 postreply 10:13:56