Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (35456)	7/17/1999 11:01:00 AM
From: quartersawyer	Respond to of 152472

After the Ericsson announcement was made, you might be surprised at how how many, many people were mentioning that they had already been invested in Q because they "knew" Ericsson simply had to cave eventually. We were told that, for those who truly understood the issues, the idea that Ericsson wouldn't cave was simply not plausible. There were a number of people who, frankly, were patting themselves on the back. Meanwhile, those of us who subscribed to a different investing philosophy were of the thinking that those people had taken on significantly more risk by investing so much sooner than we did. We were thrilled that they were reaping the greater profits in return for the risk. However, that isn't to say that many of us weren't also enjoying huge profits with less risk in other stocks while we waited for a better time (as defined by a different set of investing criteria) to jump into Qualcomm. Mike, for many, earlier conviction of Q's success was not at all philosophical, just a matter of having come to an understanding of the technology and following it. The 40's were a great time to invest in Q. Regards, and thanks for your powerful G&K insights. Bruce N.

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (35456)	7/17/1999 12:11:00 PM
From: JMD	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Mike, you ask a fascinating question with respect to the "right" entry point for a company like Qualcomm, one that is trying to carve out a new chunk of techno-turf against fierce opposition. In retrospect, I guess you're saying that the perfect time was after the Ericsson capitulation: the risk had been minimized, and the future was wide open. For those of us who have (really!) owned the Q for quite a bit longer than that, it inspires some hand wringing. Yeah, our cost basis is very, very (Irwin*) low. But we took one helluva risk. "Your" basis is higher, but your risk was lower so that on a 'risk adjusted' basis it is likely that the Net Present Value of your expected investment return was/is higher than "ours". [I think when the MBA-speak goes away, that means: you heap smarter fellers] To which I say, bummer, dude. This has been bugging me cause I'm sitting on a truckload full of Loral and Globalstar who are trying to pull off basically the same trick. A few political investigations of treason on the part of the company and its CEO, one spectacular launch failure that fried 12 birds at maybe $100MM/copy, and now the bankruptcy of its largest competitor casting a pall over the entire concept, does cause one to wonder if the early investor comes out with anything other than bragging rights and battle scars. Hmmmm, does this mean the Q has become an annuity and I can just tuck it away my US Steel? Kind regards, Mike Doyle

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (35456)	7/17/1999 12:11:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 152472

Mike: Since I was among those who invested in the Q well in advance of the Ericsson deal, here is how I found the Q. I used an alternative approach: The alternative approach is to concentrate initial research on finding which technologies are most likely to have explosive future growth. Then narrow the focus on those segments with the most potential. Then find some leaders in each. This led to 1 telecom equip/networking, 2 wireless and fiber 3 the Q inter alia. This research led me from networking - where I had done well with Cisco et al - to a broader look at "networking" which seemed to me to link telecom and the IPs - with the internet emerging as a major growth factor.. Therefore I researched telecom. And on the general principle that investing in equip suppliers is a better approach than choosing operating companies, I looked for them within the segments that looked most promising - wireless and fiber. Within wireless, the more I researched the Q's technology and its position, the more attractive it seemed. Therefore I not only bought the stock itself but Jan 2000 LEAPS in the fall of 1997. Perhaps this was excessively risky, I thought it was sensible. Still think so. Best, Chaz