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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (4697)	12/30/1999 3:29:00 PM
From: RoseCampion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Ramsey, on days like today, a few choice words from your "shy friend" are as a balm on janGled nerves. Thanks Jillions for Passing these on to us. In the HDR excitement over the last two months, I've barely heard mention of Eudora (sure, now 'free' software supported by advertising - but tell me what a standalone company with the lion's share of the dedicated email software market, and a guaranteed e-advertising revenue stream through it, be valued at in today's market? Or what kind of leverage the knowledge/experience gained by Q in owning it will have on future wireless email endeavors?) Nor are we speaking much anymore of the still-nascent digital cinema initiative. Add in the G* stake, the NextWave connection, those two licences the FCC owes us, and the whole weird Wireless Knowledge venture, should it ever amount to anything worthwhile... To my way of thinking, the third leg of the stool is already getting pretty long, and that's even before Dr.J goes shopping with his $2-3B Christmas Fund. Not to mention what might already be in the Q R&D labs that none of us have even gotten wind of yet... -Rose-

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (4697)	12/30/1999 3:36:00 PM
From: Cooters	Respond to of 13582

Ramsey, Thanks for this most-timely post. We always trust management to execute the business plan set before us, no matter how 'easy' it may seem. The forgotten part is the trust we place in them for the next idea, followed by the next idea, and so on. Cooters

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (4697)	12/30/1999 6:22:00 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 13582

Ramsey, an excellent analysis, particularly your treatment of the unknowns, which so often are left out of any calculation. There is still another alternative in the event that the management doesn't find a way to invest the cash flow from all those royalties. If nothing out there looks all that great, they could buy QCOM shares, thereby increasing the earnings per share, even if net earnings leveled off. Taking investment alternatives into consideration, including buying one's own shares, $250 post split seems probably on the low side, if not in 2000 then in 2001. I agree that the Paine Webber analysis is amateurish and doesn't really offer very much that is constructive.

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (4697)	12/30/1999 10:39:00 PM
From: llwk7051@aol.com	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

To Ramsey Su's shy friend, Thanks for bringing up the third leg issue. Maybe the cat is still in the bag and much of qcom value is still hidden from many. Jacob's statements recently have indicated he expects next five to ten years to be very exciting. I can still remember Gregg Powers statement of how much he admired Jacobs. Management and vision at the top are not easily quantified. Investors must understand that rare people, who are head and shoulders above their peers, run qcom; and their value maybe as great or greater than any other factor to qcom investors. Robert

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (4697)	12/31/1999 2:31:00 AM
From: cfoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

To that excellent post from your "shy friend" I would like to add the following. It comes from a transcript of a panel discussion at the New Economy Conference (related to Gilder Group) this past fall. The panel was mainly discussing the valuation of Internet companies (such as Amazon and Yahoo), but when I read the transcript, I immediately thought of QCOM. One of the three panel participants was Michael Mauboussin, chief U.S. equities strategist at Credit Suisse First Boston. He said the key to valuing these companies were three factors: "cashflow.com; ...flight from capital to knowledge; ... real options theory." I believe the first two are pretty self-explanatory and the Q has them and will have them even more in the future as your "shy friend" has pointed out. The third is based on the Black Shoals model for pricing options and in my opinion speaks to the third leg your "shy friend" spoke to. One sentence in Mauboussin's talk that relates directly to your shy friend?s third leg was the following: "So we can analyze these companies in terms of the real-world options they have created [or will be creating] for themselves." He goes on to say that "real options thinking" in evaluating companies is "particularly appropriate when you have three things in place." They are: A smart management team [We got that one] Market-leading business [We got that one too] Uncertain markets [Boy, do we have that one!] Finally he says that how they use the "real options" approach is to take the value of the company based on the numbers (discounted cash flow, etc.) and compare that value to the stock price. The difference between the two (i.e., the amount the stock price exceeds the calculated value) ?could be attributed to real options. Reasonable people may?disagree on what the real option value should be. But we think that neglecting option value is a huge analytical error (emphasis added). None of this means that QCOM will automatically reap the rewards of its future ?options? nor does it offer a way to gauge a specific amount of such rewards. But we must factor these in to QCOM?s current valuation. FWIT, I think $250 split adjusted by next December is low, even if we all agree the current price is ?high.?

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (4697)	12/31/1999 7:19:00 AM
From: limtex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

RS - Firstly Happy and Healthy New year to you. I hope you will allow me one non-tech post on this last day of the year. Great piece from your shy friend. Anyone interested in the Q in any way, investing, comentating etc should take a good look a the netcast on HDR. It points to awsome prospects for the Q over the next few years. The issue has never been the Q or its prospects but the market and on Monday it seems to me we will be hearing form Mr Greenspan again but this time no mr niceguy. He has been holed up in his bunker over the last coupple of weeks and the silence has been deafening and the NAZ and the DOW have marched on upwards. My guess is that he will hit the ground running on Monday after the non-event of Y2K is out of the way and he will take no prisoners. The talking head bears will be out on CNBC in full battle dress and the talk will be of the long bond at 7.5% and Fed increases as far as the eye can see until the current feeling of prosperity has been well and truly crushed. Not that they will try and smash the economy of course, just the feel-good feeling and introduce 'a little' unemployment. Not that there is anything wrong with the economy that particularly needs any fixing either. The issue is just the growth in the market and in particular a certain relatively few stocks that have made a complete nonsense of many of the old industry dow and S&P stocks even to the point of questioning whether these companies might not be better suited were they not to be publicy quoted any longer. Mr G and his advisors IMHO will be out there to protect investors from what they consider to be an overvalued market. Best regards, L