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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: brian h who wrote (5388)	12/11/2000 2:06:37 PM
From: javgo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197510

<Analyst Marc Cabi at CS First Boston has lowered fourth-quarter earnings per share estimates for Qualcomm (QCOM: news, msgs) to 23 cents from 28 cents and cut his 2001 estimate to $1.12 from $1.18 after the ruling by the International Court of Arbitration (see 8:03 item) that Qualcomm would have to share royalties with the Korean Electronics Telecommunications Research Institute.> Somebody please tell Cabi QCOM's fourth quarter ended in September, and we are looking at Q1 now. QCOM earned $1.03 in 2000, so how did he come up with such a low $1.18 for 01 in the first place? Consensus for 01 is $1.26 and that seems low.

To: brian h who wrote (5388)	12/11/2000 2:10:04 PM
From: Valueman	Respond to of 197510

We know Cabi reads these threads, so perhaps he will realize that his math skills are lacking in a big way. I also hope this call is as successful as his previous(absolutely wrong) call about last quarter's earnings and the warning that QCOM was supposed to make. He is a joke. A bad joke. How he keeps his job is beyond me.

To: brian h who wrote (5388)	12/11/2000 3:49:06 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197510

Marc Cabi got it wrong in regard to the effect on QUALCOMM royalties elsewhere - the decision is in FAVOUR of QUALCOMM getting royalties on all frequencies and probably bandwidth because the decision broadened the definitions. W-CDMA depends on narrowing the definitions. The W-CDMA people have claimed that their VW40 is broadband and therefore royalties won't be necessary. This suggests that narrow interpretation is invalid - a broad interpretation IS valid. Broadband = royalty payments due to Q! Eat that Nokia, Ericsson and NTT. So a loss on a small swing but a gain on a big roundabout. This ruling highlights the difficulty ETSI and the W-CDMA patent holders will have in claiming that their technology doesn't include QUALCOMM's. Marc, you got it back to front. Mqurice