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 (49238)	11/11/1999 7:20:00 PM
From: Peter Sherman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

certainly the most astonishing of fortnights -- the last 2 weeks -- again brings thoughts of Holland and the seventeenth century -- is this tulip mania ?? -- is there irrational exuberance, to quote Andrea Mitchell's husband, on this thread -- remember, bulls and bears get fat, but hogs go to slaughter -- clearly the mo-mo fund managers at Putnam and Janus are piling on the Q --

To: Voltaire who wrote (49238)	11/11/1999 7:42:00 PM
From: jmanvegas	Respond to of 152472

Voltman - I don't understand your calculation - 163 x 5 = ? jmanvegas

To: Voltaire who wrote (49238)	11/11/1999 7:49:00 PM
From: Roger W. Bowen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Something to add to the list of "Things that can go wrong", which was posted a few days ago. I was watching the nightly news (NBC I think) and they mentioned that scientists are predicting next year to be particularly bad with regards to solar activity which runs in 11 year cycles. It's suppose to play havoc with communications, electric power systems, satellites, etc.. I guess the good side is that it only lasts a year.

To: Voltaire who wrote (49238)	11/11/1999 8:07:00 PM
From: The Verve	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Hi Voltaire, I hope this isn't a bother to you but I'm a little confused about the mathematics. What do these numbers represent? Also I think there may be a miscalculation because 163 x 5 = 815. Divide that by 3 and you get 272. Is that the number you're looking for? Either way it represents a great return. I believe Q can and will command a hefty PE ratio as things begin coming our way. Especially as Q becomes thought of as the 'next' Microsoft or Cisco, but with the potential to be much bigger. EVERYONE wants a piece of the 'next' Microsoft, whatever co. that may be...especially the 'have-not's' that wished they could have or would have invested their cash when those guys were emerging. Of course there are many other factors in play, you've made mention of a few. (which, I thought were articulated by you rather artfully, BTW) Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Ron Let me see if I can guess at this, 163 represents the PE ratio. 5 represents earnings in 2001. 3? tick tock, tick tock... I give up!