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: Jack Bridges who wrote (114157)	2/24/2002 12:37:04 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Respond to of 152472

LOL Nice try, but surely you can do better than that. Let's say that your corporation holds the only key patent for making gem diamonds, but that the cost basis is zero. JS would have us believe that the corporation is worthless. Obviously you have completely missed the point. If a company had the only patent to make diamonds out of peanut butter (smoothie works better, so I'm told) would you not first try to determine whether or not the cost of making these diamonds (peanut butter, etc) was more or less than the market price of diamonds before rendering an opinion? Or perhaps this is a new way of thinking for you. Profit is the difference between what it takes to run the business and what the business brings in. And a business that is ostensibly profitable should have some of that profit lying around. After a while, that is. What if you go digging, and you find that the way this company posts a profit is due to regularly selling parts of the machine at below market value and booking this sale as a credit to cash flow? What if after adjusting for the effects of this (obviously not sustainable) business model the company is actually in the hole? If you found this to be the case then perhaps you might also suggest that the company isn't worth as much as the books suggest. Diamonds notwithstanding. John