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: jmanvegas who wrote (72478)	5/25/2000 6:25:00 PM
From: Dalin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

I now see support in the 50's and if Naz goes under 3000 to fill a gap in the 2850-2900 range, which it should, could we see QCOM trade in the high 40's No bashing...just a question. Will you be a buyer at those levels? :0) D.

To: jmanvegas who wrote (72478)	5/25/2000 6:54:00 PM
From: Gut Trader	Respond to of 152472

jman well said. Not to mention the secondary offering @ 40 lol last summer. I wonder what price China told Qcom they wanted its stock at before they would buy a CDMA fortune cookie machine. GT@X-file.com

To: jmanvegas who wrote (72478)	5/25/2000 7:08:00 PM
From: waverider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

You now join Skeeter and that Dr K...somethingorother by implying Irwin Jacobs is a liar and a cheat. Congratulations.

To: jmanvegas who wrote (72478)	5/25/2000 7:34:00 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Respond to of 152472

Nice review. You forgot Piecyk's pie-in-the-sky price target. And one can only wonder how low QCOM had to stoop in begging DDI to go with cdma2000. Details confidential, of course. QCOM's idiotic gambit to build their own network in Japan--they should've just draped a big "Sell this stock!" sign out in front of HQ.

To: jmanvegas who wrote (72478)	5/25/2000 8:12:00 PM
From: Boplicity	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

re: . It was QCOM's management at its finest hour. I take exception to that. No way, no how, does or did QCOM's management act in any way that is not in the best interest to QCOM. You sound as if they where unethical or lacking in intelligent. They did what they had to do, and got what they could. Greg

To: jmanvegas who wrote (72478)	5/25/2000 9:12:00 PM
From: RocketMan	Respond to of 152472

I sensed QCOM was going down when it lost its mo at the start of the year, and exhibited a price pattern that was eerily similar to AOL's a year earlier. My comments on that were not well received on this thread, as comparing QCOM with AOL was heresy. After all, QCOM had great technology. That led me to a comparison with ATHM, another company whose holders were/are enamored of the technology in spite of serious problems in corporate management. Not that this is the case with QCOM, but one always has to differentiate between the technology and the business, between the company and its stock. My two rules of investing: Don't fight the tape. Don't fight the Fed.