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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Senior who wrote (9463)	12/30/1999 2:50:00 PM
From: Wallace Rivers	Respond to of 78569

I'm also thinking of rotating ot of my laggards into a diversified portfolio of QCOM, YHOO, EGGS, ARBA, and AMZN. I figure I can't lose. Seriously, I really have hit on one which I've held for what seems like forever - NOVL. I rode this one from 19 to 7 (picked up some more on the way down), now it's around 40. call me stupid, but I don't plan on selling any time soon. I've just seen what can happen with mo-mo when people hop on board a la QCOM. FWIW also re-entered SWS last week - I think online brokers will have a kick-arse Q, and this is far and away the cheapest way to play IMHO.

To: Paul Senior who wrote (9463)	12/30/1999 3:06:00 PM
From: S. maltophilia	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78569

Any thoughts about INT's receivables? $145M Sept.30 vs. $98M March. Seems too high in such a low margin business, especially with their international exposure. Are they selling fuel to customers who can't get it anywhere else? This is a stock I looked at and passed on around 9. Time to reconsider? Not buying QCOM either.

To: Paul Senior who wrote (9463)	12/30/1999 5:22:00 PM
From: James Clarke	Respond to of 78569

nice post, Paul. I looked at INT at 10 or so last year - can't remember exactly why I passed, but glad I did. I think it might have been their low credit receivables. Nice little niche business they've got.

To: Paul Senior who wrote (9463)	12/31/1999 8:50:00 AM
From: Madharry	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78569

The question is what price a monopoly. which Qualcom pretty much is and INT is not. Qualcomm has always seemed too expensive for me. I own VARL as my way to participate in the wireless revolution. See the VARL thread if you are interested in learning more about this company. VARL has earnings and has around 75% of the market it participates in. Is the PE ratio high? Yes. But the company looks like it has years of earnings growth ahead of it and our tax structure heaps great rewards on those who can select long term growth stocks(see WEB) That is the difference between INT and Qualcomm. The cut off for comparing investments is not one year but rather 20-30.

To: Paul Senior who wrote (9463)	10/17/2001 4:44:25 PM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 78569

INT now up about a double for me, so I want to take profits. Selling 1/2. INT was mentioned here several times starting 12/99 as a value pick vs. QCOM, when QCOM had so much going for it apparently. finance.yahoo.com In retrospect, the most profitable play would've been to short QCOM (and buy INT). However, the risk of shorting such a popular stock where everyone (or almost everyone?) believes in the future success of CDMA technology and QCOM's strong patent position, meant that there would've been a risk that the momentum crowd could have pushed the stock higher again. One would need very strong nerves and a strong belief in the overvalued nature of the stock to hold a short, imo. I assume most normal short players would protect themselves also by making only a small (dollar value) short bet on QCOM. This has the offset that gains would be limited too. fwiw, and I've been wrong many, many times