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: Jon Koplik who wrote (65035)	1/28/2000 5:38:00 PM
From: Jeffry K. Smith	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

What does the thread think of the possibilities described in the following article from MoneyNews? ----> "Friday January 28, 2000; 10:52 AM EST Inverted Yield Curve - First Time in 10 Years Two year notes now have higher yields than the 30 year bond for the first time in ten years. We are clearly at an inflection point in the economic cycle. Bond traders are predicting that the Fed will be raising rates significantly this year in order to stamp out any long term inflation. Inflation lowers the real return on debt securities. The longer the maturity, the more of an effect inflation has. Another factor to keep in mind is that the Treasury will be reducing supply of long term debt through announced buybacks. This is helping to keep long term yields lower than they might otherwise be. Rising short term rates will have a significant effect on corporate borrowing this year as most of this is done in maturities less than ten years. This means that corporations will be more likely to just issue more stock to fund operations. Unless demand significantly increases, the increase in the supply of stock will lead prices to fall. And the chances for demand to significantly increase are slim, given that margin debt has already exploded. As reported by Bloomberg News, the last time the yield curve inverted we were in a recession a year later."

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (65035)	1/28/2000 7:15:00 PM
From: jmanvegas	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Jon: The Paine Webber call is a fact of life. Maybe the 4:1 split timed for 12/31/99 and the "great big suspenseful secret" to whom the handset division was being sold to, in addition to no one wanting to take profits in 1999 due to tax consequences led to the overheated run-up we saw in December. In all likelihood, QCOM's management knew that KYO was a done deal long before it was announced - they just managed the hell out of it to inflate the situation. As a matter of fact, the price for the handset division was never announced at the time, which was unusual, don't you think. Could it be that QCOM was embarrassed by the price they were going to receive for that division - it is still not clear yet. As an aside, I've been investing too long to be a crybaby - I've been through this many, many times with too many companies. QCOM is not infallible. It appears that many on this thread think they are. jmanvegas