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: SpudFarmer who wrote (38843)	8/27/1999 3:58:00 PM
From: DaveMG	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

To: Steven J Emmerich who wrote (66850) From: Michael D.Burke Friday, Aug 27 1999 11:10AM ET Reply # of 66908 Steve, Qualcomm is already priced about triple all the earnings it will make in its corporate life (which is far more than the discouted dividends it will ever pay), so I think there is no doubt it is a very overpriced stock. The problem is, they are likely to make or beat estimates and that is what most investors care about, not the value of the co. So, I think Qualcomm is doomed as a stock, but I don't know when the market will realize it. It will be a huge put winner some day. Message 11085313

To: SpudFarmer who wrote (38843)	8/27/1999 4:40:00 PM
From: mmeggs	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

More Greenspan: Maybe it is jsut me, but it seems that Alan and the Feds are becoming a little too full of their abilities to plan the economic future of the US and by extension, the world. Reminds me of the great 5 Year Plans put forward by the Soviet Union. As someone pointed out the otehr day, (my apologies for not remembering who)the country had plenty of shoes, but no shoelaces. So now Alan thinks he hads the right and responsibility to determine what are "reasonable" and "rational" valuation levels for assets. In essence, people are getting to wealthy, too fast, for his tastes. With all due respect, my rate of return in the last six months has been just fine, thanks for askin'. I really don't need Alan nosing around my financial accounts passing judgement on their value relative to three or four years ago. And I certainly don't need him to arbitrarily decide that things are irrational, or overvalued, overheated, unjustified or even just plain silly. These assets have appreciated as a consequence of the interaction between supply and demand. Period. For one man to have the audacity to interfere with that process, with such extraordinary ramifications for the individual lives of millions of people, tells me that there is too much power in the hands of an unelected figure. I agree with marginmike -- Greenspan and Rubin's "brilliance" has been as much a function of luck as anything. True brilliance would have been to foresee the events they managed so "deftly" and acted to avoid them preemptively. Hey, the guy is human. Frankly, I think he is too full of himself. Too many magazine covers, interviews, and tens of millions of people hanging on your every word will do that to someone. Couple that with the inherent government need to be "doing something" and you get a man and an institution reaching beyond their job description. I suppose he/they could just raise rates until the market had adjusted down to a level they're comfortable with. Somehow, I think my and Alan's comfort levels would differ quite a bit.... mmeggs