Keith,
I'm not debating with you what the estimated earnings will be for QCOM. I laid out the exact methodology that I used to arrive at numbers in response to Brian's questions. Anyone can change those numbers or the methodology as they see fit. This isn't a debate.
In the last day or so when the stock hasn't been trading and after seeing my post, you have gone from publicly stating that Qualcomm's PEG is 0.20 to stating that is 1.00. You haven't shown how you arrive at the figures.
Disagree with mine all you want, and I mean that as a sincere invitation, but remember that you and everyone on the thread are able to disagree or agree with me because I've provided all the parameters and the methodology. You haven't given us that benefit, nor have you explained the sudden change in your mind.
Take a look at the PEG ratios for CSCO, LU, MSFT, SUNW, and other big cap tech stocks. They are all trading above 2.
As I mentioned, I don't dwell on them. And I can only remind you that your PEG ratios are subject to change. Until we arrive at an understanding of how you calculate the PEG ratios, discussion of your impressions with them are moot.
Don't you think it's strange that QCOM has 4 times the growth rate of most of these tech stocks with half the forward PE?
Not at all. Qualcomm is not nearly as established, doesn't have nearly the long-term track record, and isn't nearly as well known in the investment community as the other stocks you mention. That's part of the inefficiency in the stock market that I believe will continue to inure to your and my benefit.
You don't have to convince me that Qualcomm might be an exceptional value. I'm a long-term holder. But if you were trying to convince me, changing the PEG from 0.20 to 1.00 on a public forum without explaining it wouldn't do the trick.
--Mike Buckley |
