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 : The New Qualcomm - a S&P500 company -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: quidditch who wrote (11701)	6/6/2000 8:04:00 PM
From: JohnG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Stock options exercised in May 2000 1) Marc Stern 480,000 sh $2.78 2) Rich Sculpizio 96,000 sh $3.38 3) Steve Altman 72,000 sh 3.38 As I understand it you pay ordinary income tax rates on the difference i n the exercise price and the market price. Soo, it whoud be nice to exercise when the market prise is down to minimize gains taxed as ordinary income and then have the stock appreciate nicely over the next 12 months, resulting in that appreciation being taxed at 20% max JohnG

To: quidditch who wrote (11701)	6/6/2000 8:13:00 PM
From: Ibexx	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Hello Steve, Great post you had on the 500 thread. An addendum to the Verizon/ONSTAR relationship: I called a close friend who heads up one of the Marketing Departments at Verizon. He confirmed that Verizon currently provides (non-exclusive) service for GM, but it's all analog. Digital services will be available a couple of years down the road. Hope your portfolio is doing well. Best, Ibexx

To: quidditch who wrote (11701)	6/6/2000 9:18:00 PM
From: cfoe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

what pro forma guidance is GS referring to and WHEN was this guidance given? Steven - I believe GS is referring to the dilution for the SnapTrac purchase. Q's management did say that the purchase would be dilutive this fiscal year and the amount they gave was 2 cents. So on this point it I do not believe it is part of the FUD. With the news re. 1x chips shipping, front-end loading in Korea due to the subsidy ban and the estimates for 15 million or so chips for the quarter, I do not believe any of the analysts have incorporated the higher than expected chip sales for Q3 into their forecasts; at least not publicly. This is so even though management said on the Q2 CC that Q3 chip sales would exceed Q1 (which as best as I can tell would be the first time a Q3 exceeded a Q1). I think the pro-Q analysts are holding their fire, calmly reiterating their ratings and recommending to their big clients to buy up QCOM at these prices. I cannot see how Q does not exceed estimates in Q3. The question is only by how much IMHO. cfoent

To: quidditch who wrote (11701)	6/6/2000 9:53:00 PM
From: A.L. Reagan	Respond to of 13582

re. the royalty pie and the Q's net take on DS: at the moment, as far as we know, Q does not yet have a license for the GSM network protocol and other network elements on which DS is based (i.e., other than the air interface and related IPR). As far as we can tell, the net take on a Q DS chip will be less, even though the royalty rate on the Q IPR is the same for DS as for MC. Refusing to license Q's IPR for DS as a means of holding them hostage to Q's interpretation of what the offsetting IPR might be worth to DS operators and equipment makers might run afoul of "fair and non-discriminatory" basis for licensure under ITU principles. Eric L. might want to address this point. Steven, thank you for this and your four other points. I don't want to flame anybody, but the capacity for learning amongst some of our fellow posters is pretty low. Normally I could care less, except that when so many myths are incessently repeated as truths, and then the facts don't support the hype, we get bad Wall Street vibes. Trying to fight the other guys' FUD with pro-QCOM unadulterated hype ain't, shall be say, the Irwin Jacobs way. It just muddies the waters further. Markets abhor uncertainties. Thanks again, Steven, for setting forth some much-needed facts around here.