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 : Interdigital Communication(IDCC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: doug ray who wrote (3535)	1/22/2000 10:01:00 PM
From: Phil(bullrider)	Respond to of 5195

dr, I am long more than 20 companies. One of them happens to be IDC. Another is NOK. I am not long QCOM because I believe it to be overvalued. I wish I could have been nimble enough to short it at the recent high. I have been on several threads that seem to have been overrun by QCOM longs. Is this by by chance or by design? It sure seems strange to me that QCOM longs are infiltrating other threads and "spreading the message". Or are they "protecting the turf"? Who knows? They certainly seem to be prolific. And also paranoid. Again, I am long more than twenty companies, but I don't feel the need to "protect" them the way that QCOM longs seem to want to. Makes one wonder. Have fun, Phil

To: doug ray who wrote (3535)	1/22/2000 11:44:00 PM
From: Bux	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 5195

I would at least do something to hedge my position. This is my opinion and that is what makes a market. I agree, but I want to be reasonably confident that I don't hedge a position which my research and intuition tells me is relatively low risk with a position that may carry more risk and uncertainty. I have been watching and researching IDC. I thought this forum would be a valuable place to discuss some of the issues with other investors but so far I have been proven wrong. You suggest that Qualcomm is overvalued. Maybe it would be a good idea to compare the two companies even though Qualcomm is in a different stage of growth than IDC so perhaps we should compare IDC now with Qualcomm's wireless division in the fall of '95, before Qualcomm's standards were deployed commercially. Of course there is also the wildcard of the suit with Ericsson, we don't know how that will be resolved. With Q, after some initial price run-ups, Q's price kept coming down, it was stuck in a relatively narrow trading range for three years. Many early Q investors I have spoke with wished they had let their investments grow in other companies that had rapidly growing revenue streams at the time. That would have provided them with more capital at their disposal to invest in Qualcomm in the fall of '98 or early '99. While either technique had better than average results, the latter strategy was many times more profitable. In the fall of '98 Q shares actually hit a low that hadn't been seen since nearly two years previous. I believe the reason Q shares kept giving back their gains was uncertainty. It is common for the big funds and investment houses to want to see the money before they are willing to value IPR for what it's really worth. This is why I was trying to start a discussion about IDC's valuation. In my previous message to you I asked the following: IDC's earnings are actually shrinking. Their relatively small earnings are actually drying up, not increasing. What kind of p/e would you say is realistic for IDC? This was not meant to be a rhetorical question. Bux