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: hueyone who wrote (46055)	9/1/2001 12:43:44 AM
From: techreports	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

When QCOM hit $200 per share on Jan 3, 2000 it was selling at 645 times trailing GAAP earnings of 31 cents per share, had a price to free cash flow ratio of 64,516 and had a price to sales ratio of 33 on revenues of nearly four billion dollars. The ratios are all based on the most recently reported year end at the time---9/30/99. When QCOM hit 200 it was because investors thought Qualcomm would rule the world (it still may) but investors were already pricing that into Qualcomm's stock. Estimates like QCOM would have 90% of the market by 2008, ect.. JDSU was worth over 120 billion. JNPR over 78 billion, ect.. Lost momo players, delayed China news, delayed Nokia license news, etcetera were just near term facilitators in its manifest destiny for lower prices. Those were some of the reasons the stock fell, but another reason IMO was because it had no where else to go. The market was already pricing it like it was going to dominate the world. NOK was trading like it was a certainty that they'd get 40% market share and be selling 800 million of the 2 billion cell phones that they predicted would be selling in 2008. Qualcomm still seems expensive, then again i'm a novice when it comes to valuations. Price to sales of 20.. valuepro.net type in qcom.

To: hueyone who wrote (46055)	9/1/2001 6:58:48 AM
From: Bruce Brown	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

I am sure Bruce Brown or someone will correct me if I am wrong, but I doubt there is any historical example of any company in any time, that already had nearly four billion in revenues, that went on to grow earnings, revenues, and free cash flow fast enough to justify such sky high ratios. QCOM had to come down sooner or later. Lost momo players, delayed China news, delayed Nokia license news, etcetera were just near term facilitators in its manifest destiny for lower prices. Qualcomm was one of the first of many to deflate which led to my phrase "have your stocks been Qualcommed?". Surprising that QCOM inflated again at the end of 2000 when it rose back over $100 a share on not much more than technical trading only to fall back down into the $40's. Ouch twice! Interesting article concerning visiting the analyst's couch in regards to technology stocks. thestreet.com In addition, here's an interesting thought during an interview with Elaine Garazelli in mid August: Question: With the Standard & Poor's (S&P) 500 Index's [$INX] price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio at around $26, well above the historical average of $14.5, is the stock market still somewhat caught in a speculative bubble? Good question. I believe that the stock market continues to be overvalued if you include technology. On our 2002 earnings estimate for the S&P, the S&P's, excluding technology, P/E ratio is 15 1/2. With technology next year's earnings is $17, so I believe that there is room for gains in the S&P 500. sageonline.com Technology is only one portion of the market. BB

To: hueyone who wrote (46055)	9/1/2001 6:02:38 PM
From: substancep	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

hueyone, My best guess is that QCOM fell (prior to the tech wreck) because the momentum players left and went elsewhere. I think this is accurate. As I recall, QCOM was suffering from a massive WCDMA/China FUD attack through this chunk of time. Also, I think the stock price settled in and found its "base" around 50 bucks. This was well ahead of the rest of the market and its interesting to note that QCOM's "base" has not gone lower with the pack. In fact, having weathered the FUD etc., we have a stronger QCOM trading in a range approximately 20% higher. :-) I'm pulling all this from memory so take it with a grain of salt. But, it sure is beginning to feel like this has been/is a good chunk of time to be accumulating QCOM shares. Particularly so when I see thinking like this: Bear Market May Be Investor Opportunity siliconinvestor.com P

To: hueyone who wrote (46055)	9/2/2001 1:50:20 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

What are the issues about QCOM's financial condition that you feel led to the fall of the stock price? Very topical. Maurice and I were tweaking each other's noses about this over on the QCOM thread that started with the familiar refrain here Message 16288457 and is now at this unconventional intermediate point Message 16290247 I personally think QCOM et. al. fell because of a shift in the supply/demand curve of wealthy greater fools, coincident with the new economy graduating from its first semester in the school of hard knocks (math 101, econ 101 and history 101 in addition to EE/Comp Sci core) and an infusion of reality into capital asset pricing models. John.