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: DaYooper who wrote (28836)	7/26/2000 3:51:03 AM
From: DukeCrow	Respond to of 54805

In my opinion, there was no way Nokia would have paid full value for the QCT division since Nokia would not have used it as a merchant chip seller. I very much doubt that Nokia would sell chips to others, so why would they pay for future revenue which they would never see? Doing so would have caused more dilution than I think Nokia (or its shareholders) would want to see. It would probably have been cheaper for Nokia to just buy the chips straight from Qualcomm. Anyway, the value QCOM shareholders will see with the spin-off of SPINCO (QCT) is much greater than any sale to Nokia because SPINCO will be free to produce wireless chipsets for all 3G standards which will be able to roam into GSM-only territories as well (through cross-licenses). This greatly increases SPINCO's addressable market, more than compensating for reduced 3G marketshare (as compared to cdmaOne marketshare). The GSM market is about 4x the size of the current CDMA market, I believe. I feel this spin-off was done solely as a way to facilitate GSM cross-licenses without diluting royalty rates. There was no way (at least that I can see) that QCOM could have multimode (incl. CDMA2000, WCDMA, and/or GSM) chipsets without diluting their royalties (not because of WCDMA, but because of GSM). Ali