Limtex, I wish I'd written what Gregg wrote! That was excellent [no doubt because I agree with it all].
I think what's going on here is that you are blaming Qualcomm, the adherents, the technofreaks, for your failure to be an accurate technical analyst. I'm not meaning to be smart alecky or critical, just accurate on what's going on, and lots of people are feeling like you do, despite their best endeavours to understand the technological and market merits of Qualcomm. Now they've thrown you another curve with the operating company spin off idea. Which I think is great.
Qualcomm becoming a phone company has always made me feel diluted. I understand the need to get cdmaOne into use, so if nobody else will do it, they better make handsets. And infrastructure. And start a phone company. But I don't believe the expertise they have to sell is in the phone company business at the retail or even wholesale level. They are quantum mechanical, wave function, software, research and developers. Hawking handsets to Indonesians at so much per minute is not their forte.
Incidentally, the spectrum they [Ozphone] won is not in the big cities, so their plan is perhaps to value peripheral phone services more. By that I mean cdmaOne is most effective on the edge of systems where it gets great coverage. WLL might be more important in those areas too. In any event, they now have USA, Mexico and Australia committed. New Zealand auctions in a couple of months [postponed from June]. So it makes sense that they set up a separate company to be the phone operator. Same as they set up NextWave Telecom for USA.
Back to my point. People frustrated and disappointed with the share price are being technical analysts, trying to time the market and indifferent to whether it is rotten eggs, software or phones which they are trading. The technology attracted, but then your, and others, share owning positions became technical analyst positions rather than simply investors. Of course the value of the company should be reflected in the share price, but it isn't necessarily so. I like it when it is! But I don't worry if it isn't. And buy if it gets too temptingly cheap.
Okay, so you are a technical analyst, not an investor. So think of yourself as competing with market psychologists. Like D E Shaw, the big time trader in New York, who hires PhD mathematicians, uses lots of complex algorithms to model your and others buying and selling behaviour. And their own buying and selling behaviour is no doubt also included in their models. Like Warren Buffet, who is as patient as a hunting cat. Who doesn't get the jumps because the masses don't immediately vote his shares much more valuable.
So you are up against some very smart, very rich, very fast, very experienced, people who have very high quality computers, market information, broker and information access. Who can trade instantly. Who will buy your shares in another few days by the sound of it. They already have bdog's. They probably have a readout of the Qcom shareholder demoralisation index. When it reaches 0.34159, they'll buy 10 million shares.
That's what I think is going on.
Not intended to be smart. This is Genuine Advice, which is how I treat it for my own purposes. One day, I might even take them on, but I'm not ready yet. Well, I take them on in a small way in that I buy at demoralisation index of 0.34160 - heading them off at the pass, but making less money as a result!
Mqurice
[Ramsey, sorry, I think this exceeds my 250 word limit] |
