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: Bretsky who wrote (31531)	9/13/2000 1:33:11 AM
From: tekboy	Respond to of 54805

Bretsky, ya gotta stop listening to these trading types! Walberg is no dummy, to be sure, but personally I think the best analyst at Briefing.com is Greg Jones, who focuses more on technological trends than on stock movements. He's the author of that Photonics Revolution series I've been posting, and here's what he had to say this morning about the Mighty Q: 09:55 ET ****** QUALCOMM (QCOM) 61 +2 7/8: As the cell turns... For the past few months, the story of China and QUALCOMM has indeed been a soap opera. Just a quick glance at our In Play archives reveals the constant twists and turns this story has taken: June 5, QCOM trades off as China Unicom says that it will not adopt CDMA. June 12, QCOM trades up as China Unicom says it will begin testing CDMA next year. Sep 6, QCOM trades up on Reuters report that China Unicom may build a CDMA network. Investors will be excused for not knowing what the heck is going on in China with regards to QUALCOMM and CDMA. For that reason, today's Financial Times news might serve only to confuse rather than clarify. The FT quotes Wu Jichuan, minister of information industry, as saying that China "must introduce and adopt narrowband CDMA IS 95. This is a necessity. There have been many views expressed in the media but the more that is said, the more confused people become." While we can't vouch for his CDMA comment, he has at least accurately characterized the state of confusion. The market always tends to accept the most recent pronouncement as the most accurate; hence today's nice pop in QCOM's stock at the open. But given the constantly shifting stories from China, it would benefit investors to look at the big picture rather than each soundbite out of China. The big picture is that CDMA technology will win. Technology pessimists are fond of noting that the supposedly inferior VCR beat the Betamax, and QWERTY keyboards beat the Dvorak. Aside from the fact that the inferiority of the winners is far from clear in these cases, there is also no comparison with the the current CDMA/GSM battle in China and elsewhere. This is not an issue of a standard winning simply because it gains more users. If that were the case, CDMA wouldn't even exist because it came well after TDMA. In the battle of CDMA versus TDMA, CDMA will win because the carriers that adopt it will ultimately (in the 3G, or third generation, world) gain more customers. Just as packet-switched networks will surpass circuit-switched networks in the wired world, CDMA will beat TDMA technologies because it is designed with data -- not voice -- in mind. It will allow for more bandwidth in what is a limited spectrum. It is important to remember this fundamental technology advantage when weighing the daily headlines out of China. - Greg Jones, Briefing.com tekboy/Ares@soonyoutoowilljointheundead.com

To: Bretsky who wrote (31531)	9/13/2000 1:46:12 AM
From: Seeker of Truth	Respond to of 54805

I sincerely suggest you make a note every time you see such comments like "the stock is testing the xxx support level, if it penetrates that then a test of the yyy level is probable" or its opposite "if the xxx level is broken on the up side then the stock has a clear path to a test of former highs of yyy" etc. Please keep a record of what happened later. After you have 15-20 of these real life complete stories you may downgrade your rating of the value of these thoroughly unscientific remarks.