The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company

QCOM 170.90

-1.3%

Nov 7 9:30 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Eric L who wrote (13307)	6/27/2000 12:59:00 AM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (1) of 13582

Eric, slacker: I don't dispute the numbers shown by the reportage. What doesn't make sense is: (i) why "deactivations" would increase ahead of the subsidy ban (why terminate your service because you'd have to pay full price for your next gen handset)? The spending you defer on purchase of a new one helps defray monthly charges (unless "deactivation" means something equivalent to cancellation of a contract to buy/subscribe); and perhaps more importantly, (ii) why on earth would Irwin go out on a limb and confirm Q4 guidance when this supposed Korea information (if that's what it is) is doubtless available to him, it being available to Snyder. Why would he risk his hard-won reputation for candor and straight-shooting at precisely the point Q! most needs to preserve this precious asset--during a time of nearly unprecedented attacks on the business model, the prospects and the technology. If the Korea information 16m handsets reduced to 8m is accurate and Irwin hasn't changed his stripes, then there must be a positive bogeyman somewhere. Can you make sense of this? Snyder on Q!'s exposure to G*: do others arrive at $1 billion in the aggregate? I thought that the $500 million off vendor financing (that Snyder says represents an increase from $100 million), simply reflected the conversion of OUTSTANDING accounts receivable to vendor financing. Thus, this did not represent an increase in exposure but only a deferal of an existing liability. Steve

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next