Ryan Fuhrmann has a story today at Yahoo! Finance titled “Oracle Stuck in Neutral?” An excerpt:
“Like many other formerly high-flying stocks, Oracle continues to post solid growth, but it’s been watching its price stagnate following the bursting of the tech bubble. Investors have increasingly begun to monitor this baffling trend at companies such as Microsoft, Cisco, Wal-Mart, and Home Depot. Businesses that traded at more than 50 times EPS have seen earnings continue to grow at a healthy pace, but their stocks have been virtually unchanged over the past 60 months. In Oracle’s recently announced third-quarter earnings, results were strong, but a bit difficult to discern because of the just-closed Siebel acquisition. It is apparent, however, that the company throws off prodigious amounts of free cash flow…Oracle appears to have it all. So why is the stock down over the past five years?”
Isn’t this author’s description of Oracle’s “great numbers” actually a refutation of the usefulness of his “fundamental” expertise? Doesn’t he show that all the fundamental expertise in the world doesn’t mean a stock will trend or not trend?