The share price of SMSI at the end of 2011 was $1.13. The share price at the end of 2012 was $1.50. A 32.7% increase.
Meanwhile QCOM was $53.84 at the end of 2011 and $61.86 at the end of 2012. A 14.9% increase.
So despite their meaningless PRs, QCOM's business performance during 2012 in terms of share price was less than 50% of SMSI. In other words, an investor would be over 50% better off had they invested in SMSI at the end of 2011 rather than QCOM!
But yet the mental mango continues to post about QCOM. It is rather hilarious.
"The share price of SMSI at the end of 2011 was $1.13. The share price at the end of 2012 was $1.50. A 32.7% increase.
Meanwhile QCOM was $53.84 at the end of 2011 and $61.86 at the end of 2012. A 14.9% increase."
So you mean SMSI WAS a better investment. It doesn't mean it will be from this point on. Past results are not indicative of the future. Just look what happened to Apple. Went from one of the greatest blue chip investments ever to complete garbage the last 6 months.
Also, never compare a micro-cap stock to a large-cap stock. That's like comparing apples to oranges. No pun intended. A small capper will nearly always beat a large capper in % gain/loss.
Wow! The speed at which you catch on is alarming. The mental mango has been posting about QCOM for months, if not years. The point is, that an investment in SMSI would have been worth 119.5% MORE than the same investment in QCOM.
And I have NO doubt that the same will be true this year - especially if QCOM is the chip manufacturer who have decided to buy SMSI software.
But it really depends on how many power inefficient chips QCOM launched last year that can be replaced with power efficient ones this year. Anybody heard of any major drains on power sub-stations across the country?? It could be due to a high density of power inefficient QCOM chips.