Re: the Motley Fool article and their response to criticism:
Perhaps I read it too fast, but he seems to miss the fact that Q gets paid a a tax TWICE on its asics; 1 payment for the royalty but another for the asic.
He also initially discusses cdma as if it will only go into phones, then recovers and suggests that even if cdma goes into other devices, which imo is a sure thing, not something that is questionable, then prices will drop. On this issue he blows the fact that in other similar situations, the gorilla tech companies product evolves in such a way that it does keep getting about the same margin. That is the advantage of being the leader.
He never mentions that although the analyst had a very aggressive 20 billion dollar royalty stream figure, he doesn't give it a very aggressive price based on those royalties. For example, if Q does get 20 billion in royalties alone 10 years from now, I think a value of 50x those profits is pretty low ball. So JUST ON ROYALTIES Q would be worth at least 1 trillion in 10 years. Q's current cap is only 1/8 of that figure! The 1000 dollar target still left room for a 6 bagger in 10 years, and doesn't include other sources of profits.
Finally, it has to sicken anyone that this crap comes from the fool. These guys have ebay, and amzn in the portfolio, and can justify them but not QCOM??
PS: I also am curious at what price Q would no longer be "sickening". As I said a few days ago, 125 should be 100x current e, while Q has a tremendous future just ahead. Yet, I get the feeling that 125 wouldn't satisfy this guy. Meanwhile, aol can get chopped up and still sell at 140x earnings,
|
