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: cfoe who wrote (47904)	11/4/1999 11:27:00 PM
From: Jim Willie CB	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

very rough PEG figures fy2k earnings conservatively at $4.50 / share earning growth rate proforma conservatively at 200% now, and perhaps 150% next year QCOM = 260 per share now PEG equals 260 / (4.5 x 150) = 0.385 compare to Cisco PEG roughly about 2 compare to Intel PEG about 2 compare to Gillette about 5 compare to Coke about 5 compare to Staples about 1 conclusion: QCOM fair price per share of somewhere in the 700-900 range call me crazy, but that is why I stalk this young alpha gorilla / Jim

To: cfoe who wrote (47904)	11/5/1999 1:10:00 AM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Hey, two graduates of Wharton agree. I was an undergrad. I remember somebody kept posting to a site over the last year that had Qcom grossly undervalued. Most of the traditional methods of valuation don't really work for companies that are event oriented. Qcom remained way undervalued for years because most folks didn't believe the technology would work, then didn't believe the patents would be sustained, then didn't believe Qcom could compete and make money. The secret to extraordinary gains is identifying (or simply being lucky) those companies prior to the market in general revaluing based on proof that things will work out. The traditional formulae just don't work in those circumstances.

To: cfoe who wrote (47904)	11/5/1999 2:30:00 AM
From: 100cfm	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

"<[their] calculations would indicate that Qcom is overvalued at current prices.>" don't we have to consider that with the rising of data rates from 64k to 2mgb there will be a corresponding rise into higher asp's which in turn means higher royalty premiums per phone. couldn't it be that dr j foresaw this and is why they set their royalty premium as a % of the asp in lieu of flat a price per phone. therefore complicating future earnings predictions. what will a 2mgb hdr phone cost??? certainly more then the $49 entry level phone that according to my bell atlantic rep. is by far the biggest seller in a very affluent mall in nj.

To: cfoe who wrote (47904)	11/5/1999 11:48:00 AM
From: MileHigh	Respond to of 152472

I posted something like you mentioned a few days ago on JDSU -vs- QCOM. I will try and take a look at, but if q growth rate actually increases, the Q becomes even more undervalued. Regards, MileHigh

To: cfoe who wrote (47904)	11/5/1999 9:31:00 PM
From: Cooters	Respond to of 152472

<<Like you indicated, QCOM's main assets are their IPR and the people who create it. Current accounting and economic measurements have not caught up with this change>> The FASB rulings on software capitalization have been the strongest effort to date to deal with the IPR issues. IMHO, the catalyst for this was Y2K. While accounting rules always capitalized hardware and expensed software, indicating the relative longevity of each, the Y2K phenomenon highlighted how 30-40 year old software was still in use while several year old hardware was long gone. The realization that software, or IPR on a broader scale, was the real asset, while hardware was the trade-in commodity, led to a broad upgrade of balance sheet scrutiny and eventually FASB updates. Never fear, the balance sheet will never tell the story in the new paradigm. We get to do that. Cooters