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: jhg_in_kc who wrote (57975)	12/30/1999 12:14:00 AM
From: Cooters	Respond to of 152472

<<And the dirty little secret is that even if you do accept the analyst's 2010 free cash flow number, you find that his own projections are worth about $150 a share today if you assign a realistic terminal growth rate at the end >> Oh, so $150/share sounds high for a $700 stock??????? Cooters

To: jhg_in_kc who wrote (57975)	12/30/1999 12:42:00 AM
From: Boplicity	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Who is James Clark? greg

To: jhg_in_kc who wrote (57975)	12/30/1999 1:23:00 AM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Re : did anybody envision Qualcomm coming along two years ago? Simple answer -- go back on this thread about two years, read a lot of posts, and you will see that the answer was "Hell, YES !" (And this was not a bunch of wild-eyed "stock touts," saying "QCOM is the next Microsoft. No explanation or analysis necessary." This was a bunch of electrical engineers explaining in excruciating detail why TDMA and GSM would basically "implode" as they tried to "do" data). (And very prescient analyses of the QCOM / ERICY battle, before it was resolved). If Qualcomm's share price had been where we all thought it should have been a year or two ago, then there never could have been this year's astounding percentage gain, and maybe there would not be so much hysteria, dis-belief, volatility, etc. right now. Jon.