For those who may be mourning over QCOM's stock performance in the
past few years, let me present a little data I dug out of S&P's
Compustat database:
Annual Avg. Monthly Annual
Year Low Close High
FY95 20.500 33.047 54.750
FY96 30.375 43.677 54.500
FY97 35.375 49.312 65.016
FY98* 45.000 55.321 71.937
(*through April.)
To me, these numbers don't spell doom and gloom. In fact, they say
that while the stock got way ahead of itself in '95, on the whole
there have been consistent gains. And still, like most on this
thread, I'm disappointed! But it may be useful to remind ourselves
that we're disappointed not because we haven't seen any financial
returns, but because we're expecting a hell of a lot! And, I
think, with good reason.
Tero would assert that the difference in recent financial performance
of Qualcomm and Nokia represents some kind of Wall Street verdict on
the business prospects of GSM vs. CDMA. But in fact, it has to be
recognized that there have been significant "external" influences at
work. After all, Korea's economy did not collapse due to some flaw in
CDMA, or any other factor over which Qualcomm had control. And Nokia
frankly has been benefiting mightily from simply being a European
stock: the average Continental stock market is up > 30% just since
the beginning of the year, and Finland's up more than 50%. But this
has more to do with the prospects of EMU than of GSM!
Limtex, I think perhaps Gregg was a bit too harsh with you; it is
fine to say that you care more about financial returns than about
great technology. But just remember that what you need to care about
is future financial returns, not historical ones, and great
technology is relevant to that concern!
==John Cuthbertson
P.S. Wish me luck, guys: I'm taking the Chartered Financial Analyst exam
(Level I) on Saturday. |
