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: marginmike who wrote (111097)	1/17/2002 3:56:51 PM
From: limtex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

mm- the Q is imho much more subject to prevailing market sentiment than it was before the great rise. I just refuse to believe that 1X will be anything less than a storming success. It is just the interminable waiting. People in the US are going to sign up for 1X by the millions. PDAs permanently on are going to revolutionize the way we live and work. The US will show the way since Europeans don't actually need 3G as much as Americans or Asians. Of these groups Americans need 1X more than anyone. The only issue has been whether there is any sign of a recovery. The market moved up and then stalled and fell toward earth again as wireless, INTC and a couple of others swamped all the good news and drowned it. We have waited so long and to have the stock collapse 25% in a few days after this long of a wait was 'a bit dissapointing' to say the least. As for growth well I believe and always have that 1X going live in the US changes the whole picture. The naysayers are goign to have the biggest surprise of their lives. OUr porblem is to get to the end of June without yet anotehr downward revaluation. Best, L

To: marginmike who wrote (111097)	1/17/2002 4:58:13 PM
From: JScurci	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Hi Mike, That's my point - someone, namely Mr. Market, is disputing the biz case for QCOM. That's why I brought out the example of NOK. The reason NOK has gone up and QCOM has gone in the same post Sept. period is that investors have collectively bid up the NOK business model or voted in favor of it vis a vis QCOM. These people obviously didn't but QCOM stock. Why is that? Valuation maybe but this market has never been overly sensitive to valuation or March 2000 would never have happened. I think it's just plain ignorance. I can find plenty of household name stocks whose valuation makes no sense. Take Intel, somebody raised estimates yesterday for '02 to .65. .that bumped the stock up to 34. How different is this current multiple from QCOM's and more importantly which has more room for error, which has less control over its own destiny, which owns its own technology. Just look what AMD is doing to its business -there's no AMD nipping at QCOM's heals eroding its margin model from the bottom up. More importantly, ten years from now who would you rather be Intel or QCOM - are you sure we are still going to be living in a PC centric world, or will their entire business be supplanted by a device that's in your pocket. No QCOM ain't cheap - but it's definitely "reasonable" particularly compared to the uniqueness of its business model. Name one company with a more scalable business model - a piece of everybody's juice - and the beauty of it is it's even patent protected. Even MSFT doesn't have that. Aren't they always ranting about all their software that gets pirated. Ever seen a "knock-off" 1xrtt chipset on the street? Speaking of which is MSFT cheap - was it ever in the past 17 years as a public company. And while we're at it guess who has as good or better margins? And who would you rather be ten years from now? In a networked world is it really that essential that we all have a bundle of MSFT apps residing in even our desktops ( if there are still desktops)let alone the form of operating system that is the lifeblood of MSFT. I bet they'd kill to have 20% growth over the next ten years, which this fool would posit ain't gonna happen. Any wonder then that MSFT is throwing money at anything that comes along: media, cable, wireless, you name it. Their golden goose is getting long in the tooth. Those days when QCOM was trading at one times revenues were misleading because they were still lugging around the infrastructure and handset businesses which they had to be in in order to ensure that CDMA took root as a standard. They were more than happy to drop that load when the time was appropriate. If you adjust for those items, back then QCOM was trading at about 10 time revenues (the kind that are extremely profitable). That's about where we are today. Even good old MSFT is in that neighbourhood. What about growth? Can it do better that 20%? The worst you can say about QCOM's business is that it treaded water these last two years (while everyone elses cratered). Why? For one thing they were adding important new markets (Japan, Latin America, etc. )so that even as growth in older markets slowed due to recessionary forces there were still net adds. Now if were are indeed about to see an economic recovery there will be a cyclical upkick that will benefit QCOM in addition to additional newer markets (China, Indian WLL). Then there's the product cycle which of 1xrtt etc. which will positively affect ASP's replacement rates, etc. That's not fully factored in the stock just as the future likely outcome of NOK isnt factored into that stock. Do you think that the average investor has even figured out that there's a difference in one wireless carrier versus another based on the technology running under the hood? What's ATT Wireless going to offer as Verizon, Sprint etc start flogging their data offerings? Moreover, what are the economics of such offerings and resultant competitive responses when one factors the economics of relative capacity and backward compatibility? When the strong get stronger what happens to their growth rates? How much bigger will QCOM be when its economic sphere if influence literally encompasses every part of the globe. Unless you don't think this will happen during the present decade - how can the growth rate not be at least 20%. Then you ask - well when will that happen? Answer - it's already happening on a small scale - when will that scale ramp? maybe this year, maybe next - but it will happen. So the risk is not quibbling about the low tick. I used to say that years ago when this stock was in a tight range of 40-70 (before the 8:1split) that the entry price didn't matter because when you eventually looked back at the stock price graph covering that period - it would all look like a flat line whose price during that period was indistinguishable. best

To: marginmike who wrote (111097)	1/18/2002 7:46:31 AM
From: limtex	Respond to of 152472

mm -FRom Conners CFO of MSFT - No recovery.We do not think we are in a recovery leading to positive growth in the near future," Connors said. "It does appear that the current challenges have not yet passed." Connors said that though the company hadn't done detailed forecasting for fiscal 2003, judging by analysts' current forecasts for Microsoft and other technology firms, people are expecting quite a strong recovery. But "from our perspective, it's premature to call that," he said. "We don't see a booming recovery anytime soon." He was the first person to say in Nov 2000 that their business World Wide had substantially fallen off quite suddenly. When he speaks he knows what he is talking about. The recovery is non-existent. Best, L