QCOM traded at $52.25 on Jan. 4th, 1999. It split 2:1 on May 11, 1999 It split again, 4:1 on Dec 31, 1999 It traded up to $200 on Jan 3rd, 2000. That's a gain of over 3000%, in 12 months. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=QCOM&a=00&b=1&c=1999&d=00&e=26&f=2000&g=d You should have checked your premises before wasting my time.
You wasted my time by posting three other stocks that did not rise 2000% Qcom's rise was 2491.04 percent not 3000.
Oh the tears coming out of my eyes right now. Please, anything but ignore. What will I do? Where will I go?
Just to put one last nail into this idiot/troll/idiotic troll: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=AMZN&a=04&b=1&c=1997&d=00&e=1&f=2000&g=d&z=66&y=198 AMZN traded at $18.12 on July 1, 1997 AMZN split 2:1 on June 2, 1998 AMZN traded at $361.88 on December 28, 1998 <b>A gain of 3,994% in under 18 months.</b> I won't bother doing the rest.
I found a more recent example and posted it right after my first post about the 2000%. The point is it is rare. The point is they later fall. The point is the stock was priced to perfection, and it may not be a good idea to buy a stock up 2087% and gapping down after earnings. I guess it was more important for you to find stocks than to get the point.
Although you have identified a real inefficiency (investors do tend to have excessive confidence in he extension of past fundamental trends), I wouldn't consider good past results by themselves to be a sufficient condition for a short position of meaningful size. It's also important to note that stocks - even when very overvalued - can continue to rise dramatically. XLA for example.