| | | Email to Barrons, re: recent Mizuho QCOM downgrade article
nate.wolf@barrons.com
January 14, 2026
Subject: Important Context Missing From Your Qualcomm Mizuho downgrade Coverage
Hi Nate,
As a long-term Qualcomm investor who models the handset market and the company’s business mix , I want to be direct about several material points that were missing from your recent piece and that meaningfully change the framing.
First, the “Qualcomm didn’t respond” line is a non-story. Qualcomm — like most companies — does not comment on individual analyst notes. It’s standard policy, not a signal, and presenting it as meaningful adds noise rather than clarity.
Second, my 2025–2026 handset-share modeling shows Android and Qualcomm-powered devices taking global share from Apple, especially in the premium tier where performance-per-dollar matters. This is not speculative — it’s visible in the data and reinforced by Cristiano Amon’s recent public comments about premium-tier Android strength and ongoing share gains. That context directly contradicts the downgrade narrative and should have been included.
It’s also unclear why Mizuho ignored Qualcomm’s premium-tier share gains when forecasting an 8% iPhone unit decline. If Apple is losing units, someone is gaining on them — and the data shows who that is.
Third, the “lost Apple modem business” angle is outdated. The transition has been telegraphed for years and is fully priced into the stock. Treating it as a fresh negative misrepresents the current investment case, especially given Qualcomm’s accelerating mix shift toward higher-growth, diversified markets — automotive, PC, XR, IoT, and now data-center silicon. These segments drive the majority of incremental value and carry longer, more durable cycles than handsets.
Fourth, it’s important to acknowledge the source: Mizuho is not a major broker, and the analyst behind the downgrade is not widely followed or influential in the industry. The call was treated as if it came from a top-tier house — it didn’t.
Finally, since your article was published, Qualcomm’s stock has sold off sharply (~10%), while Apple’s stock barely moved despite the same forecast calling for an 8% iPhone unit decline in 2026. That asymmetry highlights a recurring issue: Qualcomm is penalized for risks that are already fully priced in, while Apple is given a free pass on equivalent or larger headwinds.
If you want to review the underlying share-shift model or the non-handset revenue build, I’m happy to walk through it.
Best,
Jim |
|
