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.

Non-Tech : The Critical Investing Workshop -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: CAtechTrader who wrote (16801)	4/28/2000 10:40:00 AM
From: Jim Willie CB	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 35685

excellent old news on QCOM sellers I agree Soros funds must be done with selling do you have any info on other sellers? was MerrillLynch a seller? to finance that wicked hot AWE? QCOM is in a transition phase now, for sure chipping away at the 105-110 area now in Jan2k, we saw a violent reversal at 105-110 that kind of reversal is not the stuff that confirms: "old support is new resistance" this 105-110 area would be more a problem with a sustained period of trading and bouncing, scraping and diddling at 105-110 Qhigh today 108.22 chipping away, Jim

To: CAtechTrader who wrote (16801)	4/28/2000 11:00:00 AM
From: Jill	Respond to of 35685

OT: CAtechTrader. Every time I see your moniker, somehow it registers in my mind as "Catch a trader." LOL. Thanx for your take this a.m. I miss VOLTY! Hope he's having fun golfing and black-tie dinners and all that.

To: CAtechTrader who wrote (16801)	4/28/2000 1:54:00 PM
From: seahorse	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35685

RE: Soros Fund If my portfolio were only down 20% I'd be downright uppity!

To: CAtechTrader who wrote (16801)	4/30/2000 1:54:00 AM
From: jack bittner	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 35685

i ask these questions not to make a point, but, largely in ignorance, to ask about a negative case about qcom - hoping you will respond with points that will assure me enough to re-buy a stock that did very well for me in '99. do you see these as qcom problems?: 1. Even at about half its high, the stock is either at or close to 100 times earnings. that, it seems to me is priced for perfection.- and that's ok, if its prospects are perfect. 2. the uspto (us patent office) site shows qcom's key patents expiring in 2003. i've asked all over SI if this is correct, some people grant the point but say it's not important; but no one directly says it's right or wrong. If it's right, competitors will flood into the cdma market and cut prices; and if they start after 2003, they won't have to sign royalty contracts with qcom. 3. last week the ny times had an article about a chinese woman arrested in an outlying province for mailing local newspapers to her husband in another province. she was arrested for passing state secrets. those killer-bureaucrats do not need their slaves to have the best portable internet access provider, enabling them to read about the world outside. they may never sign that qcom contract. 4. ubiquity of the installed base is powerful. convenience, inertia makes people take the thing that's easiest to get, that does the job they want NOW. att has tdma and anyone who knows a bit about tech has contempt for that. but att covers all 50 states. it's easy to get and competitively priced. in a totally unscientific tiny-sample poll, i ask many people i see using a cell phone which they use: 100% att - 100% tdma. procter & gamble, kellogs, mcdonalds, coca-cola - 100s of giant purveyors are enormously successful selling sickening (literally) tasteless crap, so offering the best is not sufficient for enormous success, you must achieve ubiquity. but qcom's stock price is priced for enormous success. if achieving full coverage of the market turns out to take a lot longer, could the stock market lose patience with qcom?