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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (19763)	3/11/2000 11:00:00 AM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

>> Last time Qualcomm threatened to dive below 120 we had the China Unicom hoopla and massive hype about 10 million Chinese CDMA users by the end of 1999. Of course, the whole deal was meaningless, because the government had not given a go-ahead. Tero, what part of the the Qcomn/Unicom story do you see as "hype", and who are you accusing of perpetuating it? I heard Dr. J expound on the China situation at the shareholders' meeting last Tuesday, and he clearly conveyed that a contract had been signed by both parties with expectations for immediate fulfillment and then delayed by the Chinese government due to political considerations (ie the Taiwan elections). I believe it was Paul Jacobs who commented last month that a reduced royalty rate was negotiated contingent on the deployment of a 10 million subscriber system before the end of year 2000. Based on the growth of cdma subs, chip sales, and ipr revenues, Qualcomm hardly needs to hype their stock. And from a Gorilla hunter's perspective, a short term delay in penetrating the China market is hardly relevant to our investment in Gorilla Q. uf

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (19763)	3/11/2000 11:02:00 AM
From: Boa Babe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

One other possible reason for QCOM's jump that isn't just rumor mongering? biz.yahoo.com Frank and Lindy are back on their computers, all's right with the world. Kay

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (19763)	3/11/2000 11:45:00 AM
From: quartersawyer	Respond to of 54805

Tero- the degree of information and market control by Q that you imagine does not exist --- this company's management is one of the least likely to manipulate stock price that many investors have ever seen. There have been intense complaints from momentum-minded investors about the failure of Q to use the media to move the stock price. My personal feeling is that Dr. Jacobs periodically shakes out "players" like a big ole honest bear with a word like "slump", and that your projection of slick tactics to hype the stock is wild and insulting. China Unicom was authorized by the State Council as the sole representative to negotiate with Qualcomm about intellectual property rights issues. Noone is sneaking about outside the sight of the Chinese government. Their pragmatism moves them to CDMA, same as Finland, not manipulation by Qualcomm. It's hard to sift the information available, but if what we can access is true, the EU made unreasonable demands on the Chinese recently (majority ownership by foreign companies), while Qualcomm is negotiating intelligently and in good faith with Dr. Jacobs knowing that his brainchild CDMA will be in China and contribute to communication, but "we have to make some profit." Your distrust is displaced.

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (19763)	3/11/2000 12:16:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 54805

Tero: Curious why you posted first to unclewest with your attack on the Q for "hype". Many of us just sigh and think of the Yogi Berra comment (which he denied by the way) that this is "deja vu all over again". Why here and why now? Is the purpose of your post the last two words " Go, lindybill!" ? If so, this is beyond insult, it is absurd. LindyBill has done what he has done for his own very good reasons which he has explained. The comments earlier that the remarks about the timing of this sale are in good humor are very very very much to the point. Your intervention is not. Shame. Cha2

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (19763)	3/11/2000 12:16:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Respond to of 54805

Deleted. Repeat of previous. Apologies to the thread for my obvious anger. Just couldn't help defending against a cheap shot. The errors of substance are bad enough. But will not engage Tero here. Cha2

To: tero kuittinen who wrote (19763)	3/11/2000 3:20:00 PM
From: shamsaee	Respond to of 54805

Tero,I hope you are not confusing Nokia PR with Qualcom PR.Its not Qcom part of the deal to negotiate with the government of China.Its the local telecom that needs to get all of that in order.I don't see Nokia negotiating with the US government when supplying GSM or TDMA phones for the telecom providers. Company share price in this market has very little to do with the companies fundamentals,So I don't see where you are going with that. Now if you want to talk about FUD how does WCDMA sound.