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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (23)	7/22/1999 12:51:00 PM
From: 2brasil	Respond to of 13582

S&p Raises Qualcomm Inc Corporate Credit Rating to Bb-plus From BB

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (23)	7/22/1999 1:14:00 PM
From: Ramsey Su	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13582

Caxton, do you have the entire copy of the H&Q report? H&Q recently trashed WIND, another company that I follow. It is not a matter of opinion but rather completely distortion of facts. In this case, I find it impossible for anyone to stick to a $2.70 number for FY2000, after what the company said Monday afternoon. Ramsey

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (23)	7/22/1999 2:19:00 PM
From: JMD	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

Caxton, if the publishing 'rules' permit, would you post the H&Q QCOM report at your earliest opportunity? If Hambrecht has spotted some weaknesses, it may give us a clue as to the intended use of Q's new warchest. My impression is that Dr. Jacobs is well aware of areas that need attention and that the money will be reinvested in Q rather than for an acquisition. The watchword worldwide seems to be "overcapacity". Wouldn't it be sensible for QCOM to setup/fund manufacturing joint ventures overseas in order to expand handset and ASIC production? Simplistically, is it feasible to find a VCR factory and retool it to make handsets? It seems to me that this is what creative destruction is all about: the other way of phrasing it is recycling. Of course the good Doctor will turn around and prove me wrong, but there really is little evidence to support Qualcomm as an acquirer: based on its history, I would anticipate continued investment to grow the company the old fashioned way (which would suit me just fine). off topic: many thanks to Ramsey. Reading through these posts is like a breath of fresh air; reminds me of the old days. regards, mike doyle

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (23)	7/22/1999 11:17:00 PM
From: marginmike	Respond to of 13582

H&Q has had it out for the Q for a long time. There are some who say they have some relation with a big short interest(hedge fund). I find it hard to believe that Capacity will outpace demand, when everyone is squeezed for components. I would be interested in reading their reports on CDMA supliers. If there is a glut they would be bearish on those companies as well. The used to lOVE SAWS, I wonder if they are beating that stock up?

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (23)	7/23/1999 9:33:00 AM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

CC on ASP's: Something I'd been meaning to post: On the CC, my notes show the following: H&Q analyst asked about ASP erosion amidst strong demand for handsets. TT responded, no marked change in ASP according to plan. Warburg analyst immediately followed up: should ASP's firm the rest of Fiscal '99: TT: ASPs should decline about 20% p.a. Later, in response to BofA analyst question on "bring forward" (recurrent) on royalties for Q-3, TT said ASP's in both ASICs and handsets should continue to decline. He then went on to talk about differential pricing on volume shipments. Thus, management was, and has been, very clear on the forward view on ASPs. The question is how quickly, and for how long, management can maintain improvement in margins to offset the ASP erosion (obviously, this does not apply to reduction in royalty amount due to ASP declines). Hopefully, ASP erosion cycle will be arrested once net capable and 3G equipment are rolled out. Best regards. Steven PS Sorry, thread, for being so out of step in timing.

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (23)	7/23/1999 4:33:00 PM
From: cfoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Please explan ASP. While I am a long-time Q sockholder, I am not up on the technical jargon. TY in advance.