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: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (12525)	6/18/2000 12:17:00 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

The June 17th issue of The Economist has a feature article on QUALCOMM, entitled "Qualcomm's Dr. Strangelove." Note their misspelling of the company name. The article is somewhat misleading in that it makes no mention of the contributions of Viterbi, nor does it detail any of the facts that have been responsible in recent weeks for the decline in the stock price. Instead, it tries to explain the decline by what it calls a "too uncompromising approach to patent enforcement." Sounds like more GSM advocates out there. Assuming the article is also available online, readers may access The Economist web site at economist.com

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (12525)	6/18/2000 1:37:00 PM
From: quidditch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13582

Art, the more relevant and important aspects to the linkage and timing between the spike in open interest in o-t-m Qualcomm puts on Wednesday (hyped to the thread by one poster named "Maverick") and Snyder's comments are the following: 1) the securities laws' mandated separation (or "Chinese Wall") between the analyst side/investment banking/portfolio trading: this prevents, for example, the houses' employing trading strategy on not-yet-public comments made by the analysts in their employ or trading based on not-yet-public information dredged up in due diligence by the corporate banking side working on a public offering. As noted by some, the coincidental timing of the spike in open interest and Snyder's comments appears suspect, at best. If anything, one would have thought the bad news was already out via the BS conference commentary on Thornley's comments at the analysts' conference; and 2) Rule 10b-5--the general prohibition against use of any false and deceptive practice in connection with any purchase and sale of a security: false and misleading information/omission of material information/employing any deceptive practice in connection with any securities sales/trading activity. This is not my area of expertise, and I think that questions of fact, such as showing the requisite intent in such purchases and sales, is difficult of proof. There was a very unpleasant aroma in the air on Wednesday and Thursday. And it is unlikely to be cleansed soon. Unfortunately, there were enough questions concerning G's progress in MOU's/handset sales/cash flows and burn rate to make Chase extremely conservative in considering a renewal of the credit line to G even before Snyder added fuel to the fire. Steve