FWIW GE has split its stock twice in that interval: there was a 2:1 split in December 1997 and a 3:1 split in mid 2000. Meaning despite stock price being back to its 1997 level, total valuation has increased 6x (and an investor who had one GE share in early 1997 now has 6 of them).

Not sure if it's the case in the link above and am too busy to look into it right now, but stock charts are almost always reflective of all split activity. So comparing the price at two points is apples:apples.

Edit:

Though companies like GE pay substantial dividends so what price charts are missing are the billions of dollars paid out to shareholders over time.

While it's true that dividends immediately impact market price by making it lower, the market also prices in the expectation of future dividends by inflating the price.

If GE stopped paying dividends altogether, for example, the market price would tank.

While this is fairly standard corporate finance framing, I don't think it's necessarily as true as it once was. If GE were to stop paying dividends and announce they were going to do buybacks funded by cheap debt, I doubt the market would more than shrug.

Cancelling dividends and doing buybacks is different than cancelling dividends though. GE is a blue chip stock so the market will definitely notice.

It is different, but otherwise GE would just what, pile up the money? Cancelling dividends is only a drag on a stock if it's a sign that they can't afford to pay them regularly. In a hypothetical scenario where GE decided 20 years ago to stop paying dividends (to enable a better apples:apples comparison of stock price over time), they would have been just as profitable for that time period but today their balance sheet would have a ton more cash. I'm just calling into doubt whether that would have negatively impacted their share price or outlook at all.

It's all academic anyway, I think we're saying the same thing.

When a stock splits, the market cap still stays relatively the same.

Market cap for GE is still lower today (93 B) than it was in 1997 (208 B). Unless there were major spin offs, that means the company is worth less.

GE has been selling off assets as part of a turnaround strategy in the past ~2yrs or so

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ge-chief-says-assets-sales-will...

That shouldn't affect market cap since they're capturing the cash equivalent in value through the sale. It's trading physical assets (probably with poor returns) for cash assets.

Spinning off less-profitable divisions would affect market cap.

Charts account for splits. A split does absolutely nothing for you as an investor.

Instead of one slice of pizza, you own two, but they each cost half as much. By far the most misunderstood concept about investment among the public.

But Welch was CEO from 1981 to 2001, not 1997 to today?

It's almost like he lead GE towards the trend we see starting in 1997, and that the effects of his leadership are seen 19 years after stepping down.

I never understand people who think that the economy works in realtime. This article makes it clear that while he was CEO, he received nothing but praise for his successes. It is only today that we can look back and see the damage he actually did.

This is simpleton thinking in the same category as the belief that the current state of the stock market is a reflection of how well our currently elected politicians are doing in office...

After 19 years, I think that first envelope is getting a little yellowed.

It's bad PR to obsess about PR. It's bad karma to obsess about karma.