Too many people put too much in their own company‘s stock or take too much advice from co-workers. When it comes to investing, many turn to the well known well established companies. After all they can‘t fail? Wait, Enron, WorldCom, Lehman Brothers, and Ginnie Mae to name a few, were giants who became extinct just like enormous dinosaurs. Bigger is not always better! In fact, much of the growth for many companies takes place within the first few years of operation.

Bloomberg provided further proof that the largest companies aren’t always the best. Their publications (as of December 31, 2008) show that 49% of the companies in the S&P 500 (largest, most widely known companies) had lower prices in 2008 than in 2000. In fact Merrill Lynch lost 78% in 2008, AIG lost 97%, Fannie Mae lost 98% Freddie Mac lost 98%, while Wachovia lost 85%. Still not convinced?

From 2000 to 2002 GE lost 53%, from 1999 to 2005 Coca-Cola lost 40% within seven years, from 2000 to 2002 McDonald‘s lost 60% in three years, even trusty old Wal-Mart lost 37% from 2000 to 2007 (a 8 year span). These are some of the largest companies in the entire world. If they can lose almost half or more of their value within a relatively short period of time, biggest isn’t always best!

Don‘t get me wrong, large company stocks have their place in a portfolio. My point is just don‘t assume that if you buy the biggest and best companies you will profit. As they say “timing is everything”. In order to truly understand an investment opportunity, much homework is needed. You should evaluate a company‘s financial potential by looking at a wide number of financial data available at sites like Morningstar, Valueline, Zacks, and Yahoo Finance to name a few.
Where do you turn for financial advice? I’d love to hear your thoughts…

This entry was posted on July 23, 2010 at 2:04 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Posted in Business Finances by jay No Comments Yet