<<Just for clarification, the argument has been made that the price is intentionally being driven down, so that "someone" could make a hostile takeover attempt? From where did this come about and where did ericy come into the picture (besides the known confrontation)?
Or is this an educated guess?>>
It was postulated in posts towards the beginning of the day that this was likely, or else coincidently, the result of Qcom's decision re:the ETSI meeting. This may be the case but, until now, it has been basically conjecture, unless I've missed something. I, for one, don't find a 2.75% slump in a high beta stock to be all that unusual in the current market. Maybe more information will emerge. On the surface it does seem that a takeover would be the simplest, quickest approach for Qcom's "foes". I'm still not clear on how analysts (intentionaly) participate to aid a hostile takeover before the fact, as seems to have been suggested. Then, again, I'm not familiar with everything that goes on behind the scenes (understatement). I just invest in great companies for the long term; that seems to have been enough to make a good profit so far. Best to all. ...Tim (in Q for 2003) |
