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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (28795)	7/25/2000 5:35:42 PM
From: Thomas Mercer-Hursh	Respond to of 54805

I haven't studied total cost of use of the cameras, but I gotta wonder if total cost measured over time isn't typcially as low or lower even with the hefty upfront cost of the more expensive digital camera. Costs of film and processing add up over time. For the top percentage of most active users, clearly the cost of consumables will dwarf the cost of the original camera, particularly in the case of digital cameras where one may not actually consume anything. However, those are also the users for whom cost is probably not that key a factor. For the bottom of the pyramid of user activity, I suspect that the cost of the camera is a rather large part of the per image price amortized, if only because of the number that get played with now and again, but rest on the shelf most of the time, and the number that are replaced within a couple of years with a new model. The latter is probably particularly significant when it comes to digital cameras where a couple of years will see current models totally obseleted.

To: Mike Buckley who wrote (28795)	7/25/2000 5:35:44 PM
From: Mike Buckley	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 54805

Frank, even though I'm getting back to a couple things with DS, I realize that I'm not "responding directly" to one of his posts. :) By asking the following questions I realize I'm at risk of losing my status of Merlin around here, but ... :) DS and all, Having listened to the conference call a second time, I now realize what might be the source of the confusion about the method in which Spinco becomes a licensee of Qualcomm. Management (I think Jacobs, but not sure) was very specific in the Q&A period, when asked if Spinco will have to "pay" for licenses, that Spinco will get a "credit." Hearing that the first time, I gathered that as Spinco develops new patents it will get credits for payments that would otherwise need to be paid to Qualcomm in return for giving free access to Qualcomm. Hearing the CC the second time, I think the "credit" is probably more of an accounting issue. All (that means you, too, Frank :) An issue that hasn't been mentioned is that it's apparent to me that Qualcomm will own part of Spinco even after shares are distributed to Q shareholders though all the information I see indicates that not the case. I can't imagine Jacobs being the Chairman of the Board of a company with such a strong relationship with Q when Q doesn't retain a significant though minority interest in Spinco. The press release kumar brought to us showing that the IPO will be for 10% of Spinco's business says that remaining shares will be "offered" to Qualcomm shareholders. What exactly does "offered" mean? Intuitively, "free" doesn't enter into that equation. :) I assume it means Qualcomm shareholders will be offered the remaining shares at the IPO price. Right? And last, what does this mean for LEAPS? To keep this simple and ignoring the finely tuned nuances, let's assume that Spinco and the new Qualcomm (divested of Spinco) have the same market value. Let's assume that combined value is the same as Qualcomm's value today. That would result in Qualcomm's stock going down (but it doesn't matter because current shareholders would also own at least an equal value of Spinco stock when it is distributed, or is that wrong?)Because the LEAPS are contracts having to do only with the underlying common stock of today's Qualcomm, if the market value of Q goes down once the divestment is complete, the value of the LEAPS will also go down and won't be supported by anything having to do with Spinco. Right? Wrong? Am I totally confused? And if I am, does anyone wanna place a bet taking the position that that I'm the only one? --Mike Buckley