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: Stu R who wrote (66227)	2/8/2000 1:38:00 AM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 152472

Stu - just noticed that there were zero responses to your post (before this one), probably because what you said is exactly correct. Jon.

To: Stu R who wrote (66227)	2/8/2000 1:46:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 152472

>>My personal view on why I think QCOM will make a good investment over the next 5-10 years is that I don't think the market has accurately factored in the amount of earnings that will be generated, nor the length of time they will continue to grow. Therefore, I believe the earnings numbers put into the valuation models are too low and the discount rates are too high reflecting more risk than I believe exists for a variety of reasons.<< stu, i used 350% growth for year one (though i didn't believe it and the early indications are that my view was right - but there is a long way to go) based on some analysts "expectation." i threw in the 50% a year for the next 9 years as an aggressive growth rate. you disagree w/ the growth assumptions. may i ask what your growth assumptions are? investing is about achieving a return for money invested. a tbill generates a return in the form of interest. stocks generate a return in the form of earnings per share (that rarely ever makes it into investor hands in the form of dividends) and stock appreciation. i'm not telling you anything you don't already know well (but i have to wonder about some folks ;-) the bottom line, and you touched on it a little bit, is that MANY investors don't know anything about a company except the following factors: 1. cool products 2. cool markets 3. lots of hype and exposure 4. stock went up yesterday (this is the biggest piece of information in determining whether a company is a buy) dude, let's buy! can i have your bud dry? ;-) that isn't investing. that is speculating (gambling). gambling in this fashion always turns out bad. don't get me wrong - the good times are GREAT and can last for a LONG time. in the end, though, no speculative bubble has survived the test of time. arguing stocks that are beyond all time historical valuations always outperform alternative investments is utter absurdity. btw, i'm not trying to convince you of anything. i was just laying out some aggressive assumptions and explaining that, even under near polyana circumstances, the $100 B you put into qcom will generate less than 1/3 the return as compared to a tbill. you kind of argue that you never see the money earned by a company (and you won't ;-), you only see stock appreciation. yes, maybe pe ratios grow much more than earnings into the 5-10 year period. i have to conclude that is a suckers bet very near all time market valuation highs in many stocks. maybe at all time valuation lows, but then again, nobody here will be buying then ;-)