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: slacker711 who wrote (68507)	3/4/2000 11:52:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 152472

>>Qualcomm's handset division was a revenue generating machine....but it was not profitable. The sale will be accretive to earnings.<< you truly do not understand, do you? qpe was incredibly profitable to qcom's asic division. the point i made stands, your surface analysis of "qpe not being profitable" notwithstanding. again, qpe wasn't. qcom made a bundle selling asics to qpe. a bundle. that is why they gave qpe away for 1/3 of revs (at best!). >>For as many quarters as I can remember, Qualcomm has been "capacity constrained". This is was never a problem of demand. Qualcomm said they would ship fewer phones this quarter than last quarter....why? Well they sold the division at the end of Feb., so they are only booking two months of production.<< qpr production was hacked in a serious way. you don't lay off 40% or so of your work force and not reduce production. the REAL loss to qcom is in asic sales. >>Interesting statement....could you point out how far back you have to go to find an earnings period in which Qualcomm missed their guidance?<< this is simple human nature. folks have an incentive to do what is in their self interest. guess what their self interest is? ;-) remember when asia blew up and qcom management said that it would not affect them - about two weeks before a HUGE contract was rescinded? ;-) management stated what was in their own self interest and left out the possibility that an order could be cut - which it was shortly after their "no impact" pronouncement. a more recent example at another company is m. dell saying pc sales were great and leading folks to believe they would meet their numbers. well, before he issued a warning, that is ;-)