Jacob: <<To focus on the (potential) higher returns, while ignoring the (potential) risk, is to make the same mistake QCOM management has made over and over: taking too many risks, (and later, all too often, losing those expensive bets on investments). How can you still trust them in this area, when their track record is so poor?>>
Who is ignoring the (potential) risk? Doubt very much that Qualcomm management is, since they are using on the order of 10% of their cash available this way.
And I simply disagree that their track record is "so poor".
I see their track record as superior. The Snap Track puchase is an example of a very good use of their inflated stock to snap up a company that will be a basis for major revenue and is a key advantage that Qualcomm has that others do not.
I also very much applaud their use of the cash and their stock as a means of advancing CDMA.
Zero to their current sales and structure in a relatively short period of time against strong and very active opposition and perhaps even more deadly - inertia - ain't at all bad.
That is not a sign of poor management - just the opposite.
As for <<. Maybe what is needed, is to replace the Visionary in charge, with an Accountant. Someone who, when he sees a proposal come across his desk, to gamble their cash reserves on junk bonds, responds by saying, "No. This is an unnecessary risk." >>
Right now the COO is the ex CFO, so Qualcomm has balance.
Your idea of replacing Dr J with an accountant to me is the stuff of a nightmare.
To me it has been Dr J's mixture of technological know how and management skills which have carried Qualcomm to where it is. The idea that it is time to throw out the "visionary" in his case, sends shudders up and down my spine.
The longer he stays just where he is, the better off the company is IMO. I am more concerned he will leave or retire too soon.
But people differ, and we do.
Best.
Cha2 |
