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: DownSouth who wrote (38674)	8/25/1999 6:58:00 PM
From: ribman	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

190! Q a 10 bagger in less than eleven months! I've never owned a stock that's been a 10 bagger for me, let alone within a year! Congrats to all on the thread. Looks like its steak and lobster tonight, and drinks on the house in San Diego!

To: DownSouth who wrote (38674)	8/25/1999 7:54:00 PM
From: SpudFarmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

DownSouth: P/E 100, you are correct. # crunch time. Avg. est : 2.32 High est : 2.47 Multiply X 100 = Previous 2 quarters, Q has beat avg. est. by .12. No telling what if any increase there will be. I may be stating the obvious, (preaching to the choir?), but here goes anyway. Analysts est. are low for two major reasons: 1. No one is disappointed when the numbers are actually larger than estimated. No one disputes their brilliance. 2. Company meets est. and they look brilliant, even if the price of the stock tanks. The company doesn't meet est. and it is the company's fault. Win, Win, Win, for the analysts. When Q grows 100%/year, I think next years est. are low. But assuming that kind of growth (or any other assumption) can be hazardous. For Q, it is not too much of a stretch. Just my thoughts. Suprises? G* China mot caving ericy gets serious Christmas (Will be boomer year for all) Ho, Ho, Ho.

To: DownSouth who wrote (38674)	8/26/1999 12:03:00 AM
From: James Wamsley	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

DS: I don't know how they derived those numbers. But here are mine, and they are the reason I got back into this stock a couple of days ago: 98-99 estimated growth: 173% (.85 to 2.32) This yields a ypeg ratio of .47 and full value of $401 Another way to look at it is the estimated compound growth through 2001 which yields 130% with a ratio of .67 and full value at $302. No matter how you look at it this is an undervalued stock according to the earnings estimates of 19 analysts. Of course we only believe analysts when the scoundrels say things we like to hear (g). I'd appreciate any criticism of these numbers and calculations. In the meantime, I'm kicking myself for not holding on to Q when I owned it in the 20-30 range and got scared off by Ericson and the global ubiquity of GSM. Regards to all on this fine thread. Jim