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: qdog who wrote (682)	10/23/1999 10:08:00 AM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12253

If the opinions of all of the electrical engineer types who contributed to the various SI Qualcomm threads are indeed correct, then ... I think your characterization of : it is not a "slam dunk" for Qualcomm to reap massive rewards as the wireless world evolves into the 3G world ... is probably wrong. All this mumbo-jumbo about "spread spectrum is best" is supposed to be sufficient to allow us non-electrical engineers to buy and hold QCOM at current levels and assume Qualcomm (and their wireless technology) should absolutely prevail. Jon.

To: qdog who wrote (682)	10/23/1999 7:20:00 PM
From: Ruffian	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12253

PSU got lucky, Yanks will too. eom

To: qdog who wrote (682)	10/23/1999 10:48:00 PM
From: Cooters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12253

<<Buy? My opinions have never been for sale. >> qdog, Would you be willing to tell me how old you are? It would help me understand your posts and point of view. This is clearly up to you to provide..... Thanks, Cooters

To: qdog who wrote (682)	10/24/1999 12:57:00 AM
From: Peter J Hudson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12253

Qdog, First, I appreciate you wishing me good luck. God knows I need it. Actually I agree with most of the Ferret Game. My previous post was just to point out Q was not a traditional value play when you were a soldier in the Frezza wars. Your response to my "opinions" require some clarification worthless or not. >> The company has always had positive earnings<< I purchased Q in 1992 and I don't think it had positive earnings until late 1993, but I'm relying on my feeble memory and it doesn't really matter. >>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.<< Even after the earnings tripled QCOM didn't have a PE ratio consistant with a value stock. >>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.<< Never said that! >>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.<< The statement above describes your change in perception of the same company. Management hasn't changed, earnings have always been questionable and Q's future is more certain now than it was in 1995. We know that CDMA is a commercial success. >> 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.<< I know you worry about MOT's feelings, but I don't think it matters if they are pimping CDMAone. 3G is the key. QCOM will do fine on CDMAone growth in the markets they have already captured for the next couple of years. The only way QCOM's current valuation is justified is if they have an IPR lock on all mobile modes of CDMA. That is the bet. >> Now they are selling or contemplating 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<< The management that is making this decision are the same guys you bet on in 95. Do you really think the momentum crouds belief has anything to do with management decisions. >>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.<< As long as QCOM is in control of licensing and royalty rates for all CDMA applications this competition is positive. All this being said, I am very uncomfortable with the momo guys chasing QCOM stock price around. I don't care what kind of furry animal it is called I know the future of any high tech company is not a sure thing, but using the same fundamental approach I always have QCOM still looks good to me. I do my homework. Checking out what C.R. is saying is often part of it. Pete