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: cfoe who wrote (96185)	3/26/2001 4:50:40 PM
From: DaYooper	Respond to of 152472

QCOMs upcoming Q looks good (in response to earlier rumors of pre-announcing) but that they believe the next Q could be much more challenging Realize they are already making gloomy predictions for a quarter that hasn't even started yet! That's unusual. And on the asic side, Q will be attempting to catch up to an order backlog from the second quarter that "due to manufacturing issues" could not be satisfied. So they are looking into their crystal ball and making predictions on license fees and royalties? Ridiculous. They are just having a difficult time understanding why the cdma numbers are not following the gsm numbers. I don't know either, unless 1x demand is making the difference, but I trust what IJ and Sulpizio have stated. Rory

To: cfoe who wrote (96185)	3/27/2001 5:36:19 AM
From: limtex	Respond to of 152472

cfoe - This was always going to be the problem when everyone else around was warning and warning again and talking about rduced visibility and Q is almost alone and with a high p/e. By saying what they did they allow for a good qtr from the Q but the stock price was hit and so even if the Q does well this qtr they have set up questions for the next qtr so the stock price still has a weight on it even if we get a good result on Apr 25. In addition the volatitility in fromnt of the numbers was quite big last time as I remember it and it dropped down to low $50s and then recovered, but that was when p/es were generally much higher. When the p/e is so high the danger is that much greater. On the other hand with all the announcements we have seen the engine ought to be revving up and Rich and Dr J have been quite positive recently so why do CIBC have concerns? Best regards, L