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: llwk7051@aol.com who wrote (1851)	9/23/1999 11:10:00 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Why would they sell $1BB worth of shares for 156, then buy them back at 195? I don't see the logic there. I think companies want to buy shares when their stock is beaten down or when they have nothing better to do with the money. Doubt that applies to the Q's case.

To: llwk7051@aol.com who wrote (1851)	9/23/1999 11:19:00 AM
From: Ramsey Su	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 13582

Robert, I guess being chicken little, there is always something to worry about. It actually appears to me that QC is preparing itself for for a takeover. By selling off the infra, QC got rid of a money losing division. By selling off the handset division, QC got rid of a potentially awkward disclosure, of never likely to reach the 10%+ margins hoped for. In terms of management, Dr J is undoubtedly the brains behind QC. If he is thinking about stepping down, who would be a successor? P Jacobs is a relative. I am always suspicious of relatives, kind of like the MOT relative who ran the the company in the ground. Rich S I really don't know but I think he is weak on the real tech stuff. Schrock? He would be technically competent but is he a CEO/president type? Thornley has proven to be pretty sharp with his pencils but is an acct type suitable for a high tech CEO position? So may be the best strategy is to partition off the parts and then get top dollars for the core. Hows that for speculation of the day. Ramsey

To: llwk7051@aol.com who wrote (1851)	9/23/1999 2:43:00 PM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 13582

Your premise is incorrect; there are already 300 million shares authorized, I think at the 1998 annual meeting. We went over all this at least a week ago; it was based on a post from someone who was reading an old proxy statement and notice of annual meeting. Forget about a split for now; the company will authorize an increase in shares at the February 2000 meeting--my guess would be somewhere close to a billion shares. Buying back shares indicates the company has no better use of funds; there are too many value creating opportunities. A company would be crazy to spend its cash to buy shares for its treasury for the purpose of enabling a split. It just doesn't happen. Company's buy their shares when the stock is undervalued and it is a profitable use of cash--better than investing same in its business. Furthermore, the company would not put more shares in treasury and take them out of the float. As it becomes more widely traded, more--not fewer--shares are needed.