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: Voltaire who wrote (46610)	10/30/1999 11:58:00 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Hi Voltaire, no Dell's split the last time did not make a bit of difference because it was not desired the way it was. Buying/selling is always a judgment call--inescapable truth. People, disliking the uncertainty of this situation, seek to develop "systems" with "laws" that will provide an answer without resorting to a judgment call ("chance"). The problem I see with the logic you mention for Dell (i.e., it was one of the "bad splitters") is that the "reality" of Dell's being a bad splitter is not some self-apparent truth, but rather a judgment call. If it were a self-apparent truth, then the "system" (i.e., in this example, your thesis about split types) would be a happy one which obviates the need for uncertainty-laden "judgment calls". Unfortunately, as I see it, people trading Dell's stock around the time of the last split had to make a judgment call about whether it was good or bad. Hence, the judgment call issue has just been hopped from one lily pad (Is the stock a buy?) to another (Is Dell a "good splitter" or a "bad splitter"?). Did the splits of Dell make a difference when it was desired, just ask the Dell Heads at the time. Sure, but how many of the Dellheads knew the last one was "not desired" at the time? I live in Delltown, and not many here were quick to the draw on that judgment call. That's my point. As for the case of QCOM splitting, mgmt has all but announced they will vote for an increase in available shares and announce a split at the shareholder's meeting in Feb--why is it so critical that they take some rah-rah steps in the interim? I don't know if you were invested in QCOM prior to the last split (in May, I think), but the stock ran up to over 220 (sound familiar?), and post split fell to the low 90s or maybe high 80s around end-May/early June. Now, one can say there is a "need" for a split now; therefore it is a "good" one. But presumably it was even more "needful" back in May, and yet the short-term post-split action was a pullback. What is to say the same won't be true this time? I don't know--maybe it's Door Number 1 (QCOM goes UP UP UP to 275!), maybe it's Door Number 2 ("sell the news" pullback to 170). To me, it is just a tail-chasing kind of thing to worry about. But to each his own, eh? Not impressed with Warren Buffett and his view of the New Paradigm or lack there of, said he would never invest in any Internet stock, geez! Nor I. That's why I'm invested in QCOM and not BRKA. But Buffett's failure to adapt to high-tech does not take away from his greatness as an investor before the days of wire and string. Cheers, MM