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.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter J Hudson who wrote (674)	10/19/1999 3:36:00 PM
From: Sawtooth	Respond to of 12253

<<The Q at 200 is more of a value play than it was in 1995 at 20...>> I've been saying the same thing for awhile; seems it's sometimes difficult to grasp the concept as it seems counter-intuitive. At 20 it was a gamble; at 200 it's investment grade. JMO. ...Tim

To: Peter J Hudson who wrote (674)	10/23/1999 8:55:00 AM
From: qdog	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 12253

Buy? My opinions have never been for sale. They were never for sale since I first posted in SI and they will never be for sale. Simply, my opinions are worthless, which means I'm worthless..... let me work on that argument and get back to ya. Then again so are yours and everyones else's opinions. As to the heart of your opinion; I not only bought this stock cheap in 1995, but also in 1996, 1997 and in 1998 I bought it at $20 as well in Oct. The company has always had positive earnings, and I think it was 96 they had slightly negative earnings growth, growth is the keyword. Between 96 and 97 the earnings tripled, but not the stock. Why is that? It wasn't a popular stock amongst the momentum crowd and money managers plus analyst. So with what you are saying then, up until oct 98 this stock was a risk to purchase at $20 and thus the Ferret Game is a falsehood. That only when a stock is being bounced around by momentum investors is it only worth investing. Gee I'll take the 600, 700, 800% return for IDing a stock that has fair value, good product, solid management and good growth potential for that kind of return anyday over investing in high PE, questionable earnings, uncertain future, popularity winner of the momentum crowd anyday. Contrary to what you think and many others, I think QCOM future is as rsky if not more than it was in '95. Infrastucture business is a high margin biz. QCOM sold because they couldn't compete effectively with the Lucent's, NOrtel's, Motorola's. Of those three, they manage to piss off one. Gee I wonder if Motorola is out pushing CDMAOne or even CDMA2000 these days? Ericsson will not replace Motorola nor am I convinced that Ericsson will give up pushing GSM/W-CDMA. That leaves Nortel and Lucent as the big original backers. Korea's Samsung has enter the space, but they have both CDMA's. Lucent bombshell opinion last August before the ITU was they didn't care who won. Nortel thought Ericsson and Qualcomm to be like little children. So who going to push CDMA2000 on the infrastructure side? Now they are selling or comtemplating selling the handset division, even with a huge advantage in being first to market, because they haven't been able to improve the margins or whatever. They now are staking the future on ASIC's and the momentum crowds belief that CDMA 2000 is the 3G standard, which it is one of a couple. I still see GSM winning contracts, still expanding and I see 2.5G deployment based on the technology. I still see TDMA carriers building out and have their solution in place for 3G and approved by the ITU. I also see worldclass component manufactures such as Intel, Phillips, TI entering the space to compete with QCOM ASIC's in CDMAOne as well as CDMA2000, W-CDMA, GSM and TDMA's future. I read that QCOM wants to partner with a GSM manufacturer. Not all of what will occur in the future years, will benefit QCOM in the IPR revenue stream. WTO patents are good for only 20 years from when filed. When January 1, 2002 rolls around, the world will not magically be 3G, but instead it will be a buildout of a couple of years. There will be other wireless product that will compete with 3G that may in fact make the 2Mbps feature unpopular. There is still a question of frequency bandwidth for the present operators in the US, but not necessarily in other parts of the world. The others parts of the world are GSM. Nor do I believe in companies with market cap's whose annual revenues equal the earnings of similarly market cap companies. There is the absurdity that has invaded the market and the present new paradigm thinking. The disconnect from what a company has in assets and earnings, to what it's market cap is has reached the surreal. It's no longer about the future or fundementals, it is more about popularity contests among money managers along with analyst and hyping. Don't believe that, look at Sycamore yesterday as a prime example. Their market cap is more than established networkers in the same space, but what is their earnings and revenue. They are not the only product in that space. It rose more on idiocy momentum investing, than in sound valuation. A mere 100,000 shares equal this companies annual revenues at one point yesterday. A total of 0 shares equals it's earnings. It isn't even a likely takeover candidate at this valuation and that is it first day as a public comapany. So to suggest to me that there isn't uncertainity at 200 is your opinion and I don't see your argument as being infallible. Nor do I see the rate of return from buying at 200 that was enjoyed at 20. But that is your homework and your conviction, which is what I always say to folks when they invest, so good luck and I hope the best for ya. For myself, I'll do my homework, invest with my conviction and live with the results....... PSU #2