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: 100cfm who wrote (48953)	11/10/1999 6:25:00 PM
From: 16yearcycle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

6 is too high, imo. But 600+ might not be too high at year end, if we start doing stuff like using a forward pe of 75x next years(8.50) e. There is always danger selling a true monster. In July 1997 MSFT ran up from 118 to exactly 150 while I was on a trip, and it was 60% of what I had and I was margined. I had bought years before at what was then 12-16, so it was crazy and made my skin crawl seeing it explode. I thought I was blowing it not acting becasue I was on a trip, so I sold about 1/3 and bought back at 130, and it fell to 115 by year end. But it's now at the equivalent of 350. I paid taxes on those gains and it is higher by well over 100%. Why bother with all the extra effort timing it when, in the above best case scenario, there isn't that much of an advantage anyway? On the AMAT thread, everyone but Brian K, Gottfried M, and a very few others has tried to time that mother for a few years. All the guys who got it right in 1996 are gone becasue they blew it in 1998. Meanwhile the ones who held through the 1 year, 60% drop are up from 11 to 100 in 3 1/2 years.

To: 100cfm who wrote (48953)	11/10/1999 6:34:00 PM
From: Cooters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

<<isn't 100pe a little too high or does anyone think they'll do better then $6.>> I would answer the question in two parts: A) As a voice only company envisioning no new businesses other than a normal CDMA expansion, 100pe is too high. B) As an emerging wireless data technology provider, both fixed, mobile, and both(whichever you want), I would say the PE must be forward looking. The analogy I would provide is the drug company of your choice(SYN in 60's, AMGN in 80's). If they had received approval for their initial blockbuster drug, but had not shipped it yet, how important would you consider trailing earnings. Minimal, right? Ok, well then how should we value the trailing earnings when they do not include data revenues. I don't have the answer, but clearly this price move comes on the heals of the comments during the earnings CC and the HDR CC. To summarize, I think you cannot use trailing earnings when the business model is changing this drastically. Forward earnings are really difficult to predict and subject to constant revision, but here we are. Respectfully, Cooters