Jeff,
I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I do appreciate your thoughts and would like to address them.
I very strongly believe that every regular participant in our thread is doing his/her independent thinking about the industries, companies and stocks that are mentioned here. We've actually had some significant disagreement about certain industries, such as when anyone mentions sem-conductors in a positive light which is soon to be followed by a huge groan from Frank and me. :) There are other examples I won't bother mentioning (mostly 'cause I can't think of them at the moment!)
Regarding the Q, it's understandable why the consensus has been heavily if not unanimously optimistic about Qualcomm given the irrefutable facts about recent positive developments in the fundamentals. However, I also don't think anyone around here is prone to think that Qualcomm is a "can't miss" or a "sure thing."
Even Lindy who is 100% invested in Qualcomm hasn't ever written that. Though he has clearly stated that he feels Qualcomm has limited risk based on his study of gorillas, that's far away from anything being guaranteed. Similarly, though Gregg Powers and Geroge Gilder have been as openly optimistic as anyone about Qualcomm in other threads, both have stressed that management must execute, implying that if they don't the unbfloding story could eventually be quite sad.
You probably have no reason to realize that some of us are doing virtually everything we can to eliminate any perception of hype in the folder that can lead to the concerns you so eloquently and appropriately raise. As an example, I am aware of some facts about Qualcomm's stock that in the context of gorilla-gaming implications are, frankly, mind-boggling positive. Yet I haven't posted those facts for fear that some lurkers I'm not aware of who might have less discipline than others of us might not absorb those facts in the conservative context we would prefer.
As another example, though I own Siebel and have been publicly posting the results and progress of my Front Office Software gorilla game, I have personally not proclaimed Siebel Systems the gorilla. That's in contrast with Geoff Moore who says all of Silicon Valley has. Until Oracle and other ERP players remove virtually all doubt from my mind that they can't possibily overtake Siebel, Siebel Systems in my mind remains a gorilla wannabe.
The point of mentioning Moore is relevant to the vital issue you bring to light. I (many of us) disagreed with Moore when he said Qualcomm wasn't a gorilla and that CDMA was not the turf of a gorilla game. Many might have construed our disagreement with him as a reaction to the possibility that he was throwing cold water on our hot investment. Yet when people realize that I disagree just as vehemently with him about declaring Siebel the gorilla (I have a long position in Siebel stock) they can appreciate that I'll agree or disagree with Moore based on my assessment of the available information, not the implications of my personal investments.
Lastly, you are of course absolutely right that we always need to keep a lid on the ever-present possibilities of optimism clouding our objective, dispassionate business judgement. I appreciate you putting the spotlight on that.
At the risk of offending our leader, Uncle Frank, I hereby proclaim you our psychologist in residence who will be held accountable for the responsibility of giving us ample warning of any indications showing evidence of group-think. Someone more knowledgeable of Camelot will need to come up with the right name to reflect your newly appointed position.
Thanks again for your post!
--Mike Buckley |
