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: Maurice Winn who wrote (103558)	9/2/2001 5:57:09 AM
From: elmatador	Respond to of 152472

Debunking 3G. The miserable technology that generated a lot of noise. Take the miserable Wireless Local Loop technology that failed miserably in the market. Now put together everyone one else that wants to sell something using this miserable technology. Give them a medium to spread data cheaply and faster and what you have? Mobile vendors helped kill it. WLL was repackaged as 3G/UMTS and we have all this hoopla in the market. While in the past only the big dogs could lobby in CCITT and the CCIR, today there is a .org and a Forum springing up by the minute. What are we seeing here? Clouding of views, crowding of agendas a public relations carpet bombing. Peel this cabbage. What you are left after the peeling? You're left with no cabbage. There are only leaves, some greener some whiter. 3G is bunk. Right, I am going to have to retire my GSM, buy a WAP, discard it. Buy a GPRS phone, and them -if I still have money left I will end up with this triple mode mobile phone FDD/TDD/GSM. Believe on that and you will believe in Santa Klaus.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (103558)	9/2/2001 9:08:40 AM
From: Jack Bridges	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Tut, tut, Maurice. Inflation is a neutral factor in John's evaluation- it will affect all great companies equally. One item he misses, however, is the depth-breadth-quality of Q's R&D/patent portfolio versus other great companies/technologies. Over time, the results of this zero basis asset will be reflected in singularly superior stock valuation. I bought Disney in 1954, partly in belief that its growing film library, written of against current revenue, was massively undervalued. I recall Dr. I.J. saying a couple years ago that there are things still in development that were started many years ago. Who would care to venture a valuation for all that pent up technology? Incidentally, golf is another of the truly mass markets for billions of mini-chips. For 200 years, no one has found an answer to speeding up play by the simple expedient of going directly to a potentially lost ball.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (103558)	9/2/2001 1:15:02 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Sorry Maurice. Yes, I suppose that if my 3G datarate overwhelmed your analog antennae you would see me exceed the Shannon limit. LOL... In such a spirit, perhaps I should apologize and take it slower. Firstly, it seems you don't know Jack about inflation (although Jack does), and it's not as though the choice is between the mattress and QCOM. It's between the mattress and QCOM and an almost infinite variety of other financial instruments all one way or another claiming to be asset backed. Including my son's lemonade stand. As to my over (or under) estimate of subscribers, order of magnitude math is difficult to get precise. If I round my numbers with a chain-saw you will always be able to spot imprecision. But Maurice, if you allow reality to intrude into your world for a moment you might notice that my math was being kind to Q!. As imprecise as I admit to have been. But perhaps not. So let me introduce just two of those things I dismissed. First, a shareholder's legitimate expectation of after-inflation profit at say a meagre 7%/year for 25 years which gives us a slightly larger ending value. Ok, it's not 45 Billion it's 250 Billion. If you want 10%/year (which I think is asking too much), well the ante goes up to 450 Billion. And so on. And now let's talk about profit erosion. I introduce the term "subscriber dollars". Because it's dollars that are important, not just mammalian warmpth. Hmmm... you said that subs have gone from 1 to 100 million in 4 years. Yet Q's revenue has grown by less than 2x in the same period, and net margins by 5x. These are both vastly smaller than 100x. Which means that subscriber-dollars are deflating faster than you can say "John was being generous to Q!". So please don't nitpick a few billion people with me. Otherwise I will take my generosity away. If I introduce absolute dollars per subscriber per year... well, it appears that even if every speech-capable mammal on the planet becomes a subscriber, the odds of Q! generating a return to their shareholders in excess of what they could earn elsewhere... well, it's still low. I'll leave it at that. Notice I didn't even bother discussing whether 3G is fiction, fantasy or future. I'll leave that for when Chain saw math shows it's a worthwhile discussion to speculate like that. John.