Producing a pro forma profit and a GAAP loss for Qualcomm?
Three words, taxes, Vesper, and Globalstar. All to change.
The accounting is not rigged, any reasonable reading of it shows that Q clearly differentiates between reported and pro-forma, and explains specifically the assumptions behind pro-forma. Moreover, the pro-forma assumptions are not unreasonable. What's the problem?
Hard to believe that you have Q as no. l on your list of favorite stocks in your profile if you think that it fiddles the books.
I held Lucent for the longest, and made a bundle when I sold it despite good prospects when I got a whiff that it cooked the books. My rule is never, ever hold a company that cooks the books. I don't think Q cooks the books. Do you?
Trying to figure out where 75 million cdma handsets (down from 90 million, down from 80 million will get sold on CY01 on abysmal sub growth?
We'll see. It's not over 'til it's over.
More words: 1x, China, Sprint, Verizon, Sprint, etc.
Last word: My post asked for a comparison of QCDMA and GPRS, EDGE and UMTS as technologies.
There's no comparison. Those technologies do not exist in any commercial sense. Interesting to do a pro forma on revenues from GPRS, UMTS and EDGE which Nokia or any other supporter of those technologies may have realized, then subtract development and other technology-specific expenses. Do you have a hole big enough for that figure?
Can't look at the last quarter only. Market ignored it, too. |
