Re:pro forma pro forma pro forma pro forma
pro forma pro forma pro forma pro forma
pro forma pro forma pro forma pro forma
pro forma pro forma pro forma pro forma
pro forma pro forma pro forma pro forma
Will it ever end?
Can you imagine the fun our bear friends would've had with us if pro forma was a 2 cent loss and GAAP was 24 cents because, say, the Pegaso deal had closed?
When GAAP goes through the roof compared to pro forma when the amortization on Snaptrack ends, the Pegaso deal closes,or looking a bit further down the road when Reliance becomes the dominant CDMA WLL carrier in India, does anyone care to guess which of the two numbers will be the one that matters to to the bear crowd?
A couple of observations about QCOM management.Back in the early 1990s, when Dr. Jacobs said that he intended to displace the world-wide installed base of GSM with a standard based upon scientific principles that were strongly counterintuitive to conventional wisdom, people looked at him like they probably looked at Copernicus when he first suggested that the world was round.Since then , as we all know, he has consistently maintained that position in the face of ridicule, lies, deception, and then a shameless effort to steal the idea thru UMTS (which, by the way, doesn't work, but is still referred to by the press as superior to 1X).
In the past, QCOM would get clobbered at any suggestion that UMTS did not invoke QCOM IP, and that QCOM would be frozen out by the EURO Lords of Wireless. Now QCOM gets clobbered at the news that a UMTS project has been abandoned. Progress, I guess.
The bottom line is that IMJ and QCOM have in my view earned their bona fides in the trustworthiness department based on the technology debate alone. I know Eric L. can line up a series of press releases that shows that QCOM, like every other company, tries to put itself in the best light possible, but on the issues of true depth and substance, they have been the truth tellers where the dominant players have shamelessly lied and reinvented themselves every six months or so.
And that core honesty carries over to the accounting practices. GAAP doesn't strictly require rigidly consistent treatment of one-time charges from quarter to quarter. QCOM was criticized from time to time over its recognition of one-time items, and that it was difficult to get a handle on the true results of its core operations. In recognition of this fact, QCOM responded by reporting both GAAP and proforma, the main difference being the breakout of QIS. Within QIS itself, we learned some interesting tidbits last night. The number includes unrealized losses but not unrealized gains. One of the two largest items in the QIS number was the amortization of goodwill in the Snaptrack acquisition which will end in the September quarter.
I am interested, and to a degree genuinely concerned by the arguments on this thread about valuation, the prospect of a 10 year bear,etc. But I am not at all concerned about any of the slings and arrows directed at QCOM's integrity. To the contrary, I am greatly reassured by QCOM's integrity. |
