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: idler who wrote (1379)	9/10/1999 4:15:00 AM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13582

Idler: Sadly what we have in this story is a repeat of the tactics used last Spring to "unspring" the Q. Seems like Barrons or some other agent of the "shorts" must have a "stringer" in Korea to generate stories which make it look like the Q is about to suffer a huge setback - any excuse or fabrication will do. Interestingly, these stories are planted about a week before option expiration - specifically the triple witching option expiration. The timing permits the "media" to pick up the story and run with it "tut tuting" about the trouble the Q faces. This is fed by those on "the street" who have huge amounts of money to make (or losses to avoid) by driving the market price of the Q down through triple witching day. Now all of this is just pure speculation on my part. Just based on observation of the coincidence of timing and cause and effect. Since it is speculation, it may well be wrong. However, this is my operating assumption. If there is anything to this suspicion, once the option expiration date has passed, the "story" will have served its purpose and it will be discovered that there was no basis in fact for it at all. Best. Chaz

To: idler who wrote (1379)	9/10/1999 12:04:00 PM
From: w molloy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13582

>> Korean phone manufacturers could save millions ... Idler writes "The way this is phrased, it appears to be incorrectly implying that other chip set makers do not have to pay royalties to Qualcomm and that's why they can offer such lower prices. I therefore found the article very confusing, unless the guy who wrote it just doesn't know what he's talking about, which appears to be the case." The writer implies nothing of the sort. Top three reasons why manufacturers will use chipsets other than QCOM 1. Second sourcing 2. LSI DSPc et al offer a software stack which is much easier to build a user interface on top of 3. LSi and DSPc are cheaper. QCOM still receive a license fee. Whether it compensates QCOM for loss of the fat profit they make on an ASIC sale is open to debate. Any takers? w.