I submit, my dear Mike, that you are not being fair as to the degree to which I bashed Q's management.
As in, I didn't, really. I said they were a bit naive. They took what the Koreans said at face value, more or less.
The real problem was the degree to which their net net depends still on Korean sell through of Qcom Asics. I had no idea that Korea could at this point (which I belive is hardly their bottom) take projected March Q earnings down from north of .50, to about the same as last year, which was .23.
Only Qcom management knew just how great their net profit exposure to Korea is. For the last two conf. calls at least, Q management has refused to answer all questions getting at margins in individual business segments. Knowing the magnitude of their net net exposure, unlike certainly myself and I believe all the analysts, they should have acknowledged, at a minimum, that there was greater risk to future expected earnings than previously though, as a result of Korea. I also think they should have actually have guided down. Let me put it this way. I have no doubt that both Ramsey Su and myself would have done so, had we been fully aware of the profit impact of significant Korean slow down in Asic purchases, phone deliveries. (And as it was, I was pretty much bearish on the Q near term, anyway.)
And yes, I do think Q's management is stronger on Engineering than finance and certainly than RealPolitic/Economic.
I have seen absolutely nothing to cause me to doubt their integrity.
Doug |
