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: marginmike who wrote (95424)	3/8/2001 11:24:34 AM
From: Claude	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

QCOM was a much riskier investment then. Of course it still is (all stocks are) and I'm speaking relatively. But you have to admit its a hell of a different story now. All the things we take for facts now were maybes then: 3G is CDMA, China buildout, mass adoption of CDMA as wireless tech, CDMA more spectrally efficient, CDMA better for data... This is definitely NOT the same investment it was then so I feel you are comparing apples to oranges. Claude (rhymes with TOAD)

To: marginmike who wrote (95424)	3/8/2001 12:44:16 PM
From: deth8	Respond to of 152472

It seems many of us cannot help that miracles will continue in the future. But, the past we have enjoyed was exactly miraculous experience. Not discounting hope for the future, still we must remember that miracles are miracles because they do not happen typically or often. just@wakingupabit.com

To: marginmike who wrote (95424)	3/8/2001 12:50:51 PM
From: Caxton Rhodes	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

not the china bar or the india bar. also forward PE for Q was NEVER EVER 18. it was only after Q surprised so many times that the PE might have been that low. so if you bought in 1998, what where the estimates when you bought? I bet you the forward PE was 3 digits at the time.

To: marginmike who wrote (95424)	3/8/2001 6:28:48 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 152472

MM, I think QCOM shares have languished in comparison to many other stocks whose fundamentals are much worse. I don't believe price-earnings ratio is the only criterion for judging growth stocks. You need to look at the relationship between share price, book value per share, and sales per share. You need to factor in the value of the patents, most of which are carried on the books at zero. Also, the profit margins for firms with proprietary technology are much higher than for those that make only commodity type products. Taken together, these factors strongly suggest QUALCOMM is now grossly undervalued. It languishes because of very shallow, poor quality, and sometimes intentionally biased analyses done by firms with an agenda. I'm not complaining, since I'm taking advantage of the buying opportunities. I'm simply observing what is becoming a very common event lately, where analysts purposely downgrade stocks in order to get the price down to levels where they are comfortable buying for their client accounts. Once they have completed their purchases, you can be sure they'll be telling the gullible investment community what a wonderful, undervalued stock QUALCOMM has "suddenly" become because of its proprietary technology, growth in China, Japan, etc. etc. Art