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: Keith Feral who wrote (107523)	10/26/2001 3:09:43 PM
From: M. Charles Swope	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Wouldn't wireless technologies like QCOM's be a better solution for recording airplane voice and data information than the "black boxes" currently in use? If the information were transmitted to ground-based databases and stored there, there would be no need for the time consuming and sometimes fruitless searches for the boxes and the risk that the boxes are so damaged that the information in them is destroyed would be eliminated.

To: Keith Feral who wrote (107523)	10/26/2001 4:07:43 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

<We have to start upgrading our pc's, laptops, cell phones because all the current technology is total crap!!> Quite right. I have not yet bought a notebook [laptop] because they don't have the functionality I'm wanting. But I've bought 12 cellphones, about 5 of which were technology upgrades [I bought 7 for offspring, including a round of upgrades to CDMA]. Regarding the 117% population saturation the Strategis report gave and the doubt somebody had, that's already in place for our family. Son has two phones [one CDMA prepay with WAP, banking etc, the other GSM for quality and coverage - yes, quality, the connection where we live, in the middle of one of the central suburbs of Auckland, has rotten connections - maybe the phone is the problem]. I will soon has two phones [as soon as good CDMA phones are available or the notebook with the CDMA link built in is ready]. We have about 10 calculators [my first one, they had just been invented, in 1974, cost me a week's pay, the equivalent of a Dell Dimension XPS T500 which sits on my desk as I type [NZ pay is lower than American pay]. I have bought 8 computers since 1986 and they all cost about the same and they were all functionality upgrades. CDMA phones will be the same, but the functionality they bring to people, information and communication, is essential to everyone, whereas computers have been useful to a small proportion of people on the planet because they didn't do anything those people wanted, at a price they could afford or in a manner they were capable of managing. CDMA phones will be wanted by everyone. They will be cheap enough that everyone can afford them [other than the poorest 1 billion perhaps though I doubt even that - in another 15 or 20 years]. People will have many mobile and fixed QUALCOMM CDMA connections in their lives, with various functionalities. They will frequently replace them [see Korea's replacement rate; see the GSM world]. Our youngest daughter has had 5 phones in the space of two years. I paid for the first [an Alcatel GSM prepay] and the latest [the CDMA one, which is cdmaOne]. They are a fashion statement as much as anything. But they have to have the functionality too. The USA is in the stone age still on mobile phones. Japan is streets ahead. Korea is now racing into the lead with 1xRTT in huge demand. Watch what happens when China gets going. Japan and Korea went nuts over cellphones. China is stepping right up to the present from no phones at all. China will go at least as nuts as Japan and Korea over cellphones. They will want all the mod cons which only CDMA can provide. Unicom has seen the lay of the land and is already talking of focusing on CDMA development to the exclusion of their GSM network. We now know that China is NOT going to pull the ball away this time. It's being kicked high over the goal posts. Mqurice

To: Keith Feral who wrote (107523)	10/26/2001 4:14:50 PM
From: H. Bradley Toland, Jr.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Keith and Margin Mike, I'm just saying a 70 multiple is justified today for a company that can grow 4 or 5 years at a 40% rate. And that is the question. It's certainly a tall order. We'll have to have this discussion again in a few years, won't we? Said another way, we're not inclined to sell at 70x earnings and feel quite comfortable buying shares at below 40 times. We sold 1/3 of our holding at 150 when it had the crazy runup. Should have sold more. regards, bt ps maybe a 30% cagr is more realistic which would support a 45 multiple, about where it's now trading.