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 : Nokia (NOK) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (10530)	4/13/2001 2:24:07 PM
From: Puck	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 34857

I see nothing in Qualcomm's financial results to indicate that they are anything other than a niche technology player. Texas Instruments is a hell of a lot more important to Nokia as a supplier than Qualcomm ever will be. Qualcomm doesn't even do the service to their shareholders of paying a dividend, and Qualcomm's senior management purposefully says things that undercut the valuation of its stock and thus the potential for capital appreciation in its stock that its shareholder hope for. Without dividends and with management attempting to keep the stock price as low as possible--with these two huge drags on Qualcomm's total return--why would anyone even consider owning shares of this company. Nokia's shares have fallen during the past year, though not nearly as much as Qualcomms. Yet Nokia shareholders receive one third of Nokia's earnings in cash while they wait. What do Qualcomm shareholders receive? Management thanks for shareholder support, but this doesn't exactly pay the bill does it?

To: Caxton Rhodes who wrote (10530)	4/14/2001 8:18:09 AM
From: Dave	Respond to of 34857

Caxton, They are pushing an inferior 3G technology Your opinion. Perhaps their customers prefer W-CDMA to CDMA2000. They are a vertically integrated company and have a stubborn mindset. Nok has to do it all "in house". While true, they design their own CDMA ASICs in order to use TI DSPs so they can use standard COTS DSPs. I see no problem there. As someone said, the financing of WCDMA networks is betting a significant amount on a technology that is not as cost effective as the competition. How do u know this? There aren't any commerical 3G networks yet. As far as I can tell, GSM isn't toast. Offering financing to a 3G network isn't as risky as offering vendoring financing to start-up DSL plays et al. Orange et al are established carriers. Handsets are a commodity If you use that analogy, handsets have been a comodity for years. Take a look at Dell. They make "boxes", a commodity, but they have taken away market share from their competitors b/c they are the lowest cost provider. Last with respect to point 5, Greg Powers has maintained that no one knows what Q's royalty rate is. So, how do you know that it is 5%?