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: elmatador who wrote (76661)	7/15/2000 12:35:01 PM
From: ivanelterible	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

elmatador, CDMA2000/CDMA (and for that matter TD-SCDMA in China) royalties and WCDMA royalties are the same. You may want to refer to the news article on 7/12 entitled Qualcomm supports 3G deployment where Dr. J. spells it out. It's easy to apperciate how Qualcomm gets the same royalties for either standard. Apparently, Q would not license the CDMA part of WCDMA for any less than their normal rate. And the CDMA part is far and away the most important part of WCDMA because it is the CDMA transmission mode that gives the many hundreds percent spectral efficiency (and power) gains over other methods. The obvious conclusion, especially with the exhorbitant spectrum licensing costs in Europe and Asia, is that anyone not migrating to a CDMA "flavor" will simply get run over by lower cost CDMA based service providers. So the prognostication that the whole world is going to a flavor of CDMA is based on very solid facts. As for the interest by Asian and European providers in WCDMA, I believe it is much more a politically leveraged situation than a technological/ecomonic one (read my previous post to Bill). Dr. J. said in his press release they will be investing wherever they can in CDMA2000 services where they compete with WCDMA providers. That is a very strong statement. It also makes perfect sense since WCDMA is a less spectrally efficient (though more efficient than GSM 3G propositions, which have all been discarded) than CDMA 2000. In summary, WCDMA is not so much a European standard as it is a European modified Qualcomm standard. These modifications contain some GSM type elements at the expense of spectral efficiency provided by the pure Qualcomm standard, CDMA2000. Qualcomm however, was in a strong enough position to extract the same royalty fee for CDMA transmission applications regardless of "flavor". Future WCDMA operators (if there are very many, and I ultimately doubt it very much that there will), however, can be reasonably sure that they will be competing against providers with a superior mousetrap, CDMA2000 and HDR.

To: elmatador who wrote (76661)	7/15/2000 12:47:55 PM
From: r.edwards	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Elmatador, Q had wcdma chips practically ready last year> two major pieces of information that anyone who is in this stock (long or short) should know vis-a-vis QCOM and W-CDMA. ( along w/the list of wcdma lics,Jacobs clarified on 7-12-00) Under these agreements, a licensee pays the same royalty rate to QUALCOMM for WCDMA and cdma2000 equipment as for cdmaOne infrastructure, phones, semiconductors and other equipment. Companies with licenses for WCDMA include Samsung, Lucent, Ericsson, Nortel, Hyundai, LG, Sony, Hitachi, ALPS, Matsushita, Maxon, OKI and Philips.'' << from another poster>> 1.)- Intellectual Property Portfolio - QCOM's Patents relevant to W-CDMA are some 100+ strong...in all likelihood this mean huge royalties and licenses will have to be paid to QCOM for W-CDMA...many of the current licensing agreements provide for royalties paid to QCOM for 3G derivatives of CDMA (W-CDMA etc.) Earlier this year, QCOM's KOREAN patents won an overwhelming victory in a challenge from Motorola: qualcomm.com 2.)- QCOM will be major supplier of W-CDMA chips - QCOM, leveraging it's substantial lead time in CDMA based engineering, has been developing it's MSM5200 line of W-CDMA (3g) chipsets for some time and will likely be one of the leading, if not THE leading chip set supplier for W-CDMA: ebnews.com Soon enough it will become apparent to the ignorant masses that they have severely misunderstood the strength of QCOM's position in the global wireless market. We might just see a short squeeze of mammoth proportions. I am long QCOM as of today and plan on accumulating a large(r) position on any further weakness.

To: elmatador who wrote (76661)	7/15/2000 2:16:19 PM
From: Rick	Respond to of 152472

Still, few on Wall Street have been willing to buy Qualcomm's rosy projections. ''It can't possibly be the same royalty,'' says Charles A. Di Sanza, a telecom analyst at brokers Gerard Klauer Mattison & Co. in New York. Qualcomm royalty income will fall, he says, because Nokia (NOK), Motorola (MOT), and Ericsson (ERICY) all own important patents for W-CDMA. Meanwhile, in the chip market, Texas Instruments Inc. (TXN) and Intel (INTC) are likely to be extremely competitive. What has that to due with Q's royalty rate? If Q doesn't get its full royalty in WCDMA it can halt the whole scheme, as it has the CDMA alternative. If NOK, for example, tries this they get nothing. Only Q has the power to stop WCDMA, and still allow 3G to prosper. - Fred

To: elmatador who wrote (76661)	7/15/2000 2:44:40 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 152472

re: BW article: The important sentence is: "few on Wall Street have been willing to buy Qualcomm's rosy projections". To put it bluntly, the Street and the business press think QCOM management is totally wrong about their control of WCDMA IP, ability to make WCDMA chips, and royalties. Management has said, over and over, that royalties will be the same regardless of CDMA flavor, but that has not changed the press's opinion (or stopped the stock slide). Obviously (look at the stock chart for confirmation), a lot of smart people with a lot of money have looked at this question, and decided the Street is right and QCOM is wrong. This article could have been written by the same person who wrote the recent WSJ article. It's almost as if there is a "hive mind", a "GroupThink", that controls all the business press. Having everyone write the same thing at the same time is very important to them. Writing the same thing they wrote yesterday is not important. No matter how smart or informed a Homo Sapien is, he still has herd behavior hard-wired into his genes. The consensus of the Gorilla and QCOM threads is that QCOM is right, and the Street is wrong. My take is that, if threaders are right, there is a huge upside to the stock, and if the Street is right, there is little more downside, as it is (mostly) in the stock already. The risk/reward ratio is tilted strongly in favor of QCOM. But this is only true with the stock below 60, and 50 would be better. Buying at 200, when all the good news is in the stock, means that surprises are likely to be unpleasant. Buying now, when bad news is in the stock, means surprises are likely to be pleasant. In my experience, surprises always happen. My guess is the stock will bottom between 52 (just happened, and will happen again as we set a double bottom), and 35. My January 2003 price target is 150 (3$ EPS in 2003 X forward PE of 50). I am encouraged that the stock went up after the WSJ article. I will be further encouraged if the stock doesn't go down on this BW article. And I will be encouraged enough to buy, when I see 50M+ shares traded in a day. I am a herd animal too. I don't want to be the first penguin diving off the ice, as there may be orcas in the water. You jump in first and show me it's safe. My current thinking (it changes daily), is to put 10% of my money into the stock at 55, another 10% at 50, and start buying LEAPs (2003 40s), at 45, 40, and 35. I'd be out of cash, margin, and courage if we get to 30. JS@3X50in2003.com try JS@whatsyourguess.com if the above doesn't work.

To: elmatador who wrote (76661)	7/15/2000 3:00:21 PM
From: The Reaper	Respond to of 152472

<Still, few on Wall Street have been willing to buy Qualcomm's rosy projections. ''It can't possibly be the same royalty,'' says Charles A. Di Sanza, a telecom analyst at brokers Gerard Klauer Mattison & Co. in New York. Qualcomm royalty income will fall, he says, because Nokia (NOK), Motorola (MOT), and Ericsson (ERICY) all own important patents for W-CDMA. Meanwhile, in the chip market, Texas Instruments Inc. (TXN) and Intel (INTC) are likely to be extremely competitive.> Obviously this guy buys into the statement from NOK and ERICY that royalties overall will be the same or cheaper for WCDMA. NOK and ERICY must be willing to pay the handset and infrastructure a stipend for using WCDMA since QCOM WILL get its same royalty or there won't be any WCDMA. kirby