Gregg, I take it from your comments that you are a member of the institutional investment community. Your comments on QCOM are clearly based on a fundamental knowledge of the company and are certainly welcome. I hope that you will continue to post here from time to time, although I suspect that your position may preclude you from doing so in some areas. Let me wing a few topics at you--feel free to pick and choose.
(1) if you follow discussion forums on SI, Motley Fool, or damn near anywhere, you will doubtless have concluded that the security analyst is a fairly universally despised animal. Conspiracy theories abound, particularly those built around theories of stock manipulation, fleecing the "little guy" and so on. These feelings are widespread and intensely held. Does the institutional community care about this hostility? Note that I am not asking you to comment on the validity of the prejudice, but specifically that if perception is reality, then does the Institutional Investment community regard this as a spreading cancer requiring attention, or as par for the course, no big deal?
(2) I have posted here in the last few days that I feel that the Q has been or will be abandoned by a significant number of analysts because they feel they were sandbagged. I am sure you are familiar with the B.T. Alex Brown quote ". . . .their (QCOM) credibility has been ruined". I am of the view that management is of the highest integrity, released ASAP, AND HAD TO RELEASE BECAUSE OF THE SHAREHOLDER MEETING TUESDAY EVEN IF IT WAS ONLY TWO WEEKS FROM THE EARNINGS CALL. But like Question 1, my opinion is irrelevant on a variety of fronts. If the perception of the analysts is that QCOM management deliberately mislead, how long do you think will be required to restore credibility? How bad is the damage?
(3) Your comments on the "expensive" Q phone were most interesting. I have been leading the parade for handsets priced somewhere between cheap razor blades and a cheap six pack, desiring ubiquitous adoption of CDMA as the primary goal. I figured if LU thought the handset business was so attractive that they practically gave it to Phillips, why in the world do I want my QCOM in the field, except insofar as a means to an end? The Motley Board immediately produced several fanatically appreciative Q phone customers questioning my intelligence and or sanity/loyalty--long story short, are you comfortable with a QCOM model deriving significant earnings from handsets?
Appreciate your thoughts and again, welcome to the QCOM thread. Mike Doyle |
