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: uel_Dave who wrote (59498)	1/4/2000 8:22:00 PM
From: zello	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

re: Fool article...They are companies that control their given markets and have significant potential for future returns. Qualcomm has the first point down but fails miserably on the second with its share price at current levels. It is the true definition of what Burton Malkiel called a "castle in the sky," but one that is based upon a very solid foundation. The thing that disturbs me the most about Qualcomm is that its management has done nothing to keep expectations from getting unreasonable. Yet the Rule Maker portfolio owns YHOO (they have really kept expectations from getting unreasonable). Give me a break. As if Yahoo's future growth is not already priced into its shares.

To: uel_Dave who wrote (59498)	1/4/2000 10:35:00 PM
From: John Inine	Respond to of 152472

Typical Motley Fool, superficial and shallow analysis, EOM.

To: uel_Dave who wrote (59498)	1/5/2000 9:48:00 AM
From: 16yearcycle	Respond to of 152472

Re: the Motley Fool article and their response to criticism: Perhaps I read it too fast, but he seems to miss the fact that Q gets paid a a tax TWICE on its asics; 1 payment for the royalty but another for the asic. He also initially discusses cdma as if it will only go into phones, then recovers and suggests that even if cdma goes into other devices, which imo is a sure thing, not something that is questionable, then prices will drop. On this issue he blows the fact that in other similar situations, the gorilla tech companies product evolves in such a way that it does keep getting about the same margin. That is the advantage of being the leader. He never mentions that although the analyst had a very aggressive 20 billion dollar royalty stream figure, he doesn't give it a very aggressive price based on those royalties. For example, if Q does get 20 billion in royalties alone 10 years from now, I think a value of 50x those profits is pretty low ball. So JUST ON ROYALTIES Q would be worth at least 1 trillion in 10 years. Q's current cap is only 1/8 of that figure! The 1000 dollar target still left room for a 6 bagger in 10 years, and doesn't include other sources of profits. Finally, it has to sicken anyone that this crap comes from the fool. These guys have ebay, and amzn in the portfolio, and can justify them but not QCOM?? PS: I also am curious at what price Q would no longer be "sickening". As I said a few days ago, 125 should be 100x current e, while Q has a tremendous future just ahead. Yet, I get the feeling that 125 wouldn't satisfy this guy. Meanwhile, aol can get chopped up and still sell at 140x earnings,