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: arun gera who wrote (114167)	2/24/2002 4:39:41 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

arun, Glad to see that some folks understand the point. I enjoy your posts. However, the point you are trying to make about Qualcomm (and other tech stocks) is known to most serious investors...that shareholders pay for employee stock options. Thank you. I also acknowledge your point of view that most serious investors do understand shareholders pay for employee stock options. It's the N-minus-most that I'm posting to apparently. And perhaps also to those semi-serious or even flippant investors. Not everyone has the same view of the playing field. Apologies to those who are already in the "most" category if I am merely covering old ground. Hopefully the container of the message provides some entertainment value. By your calculations, the new "professional investors" who bought Qualcomm secondary offering for $11 billion at an inflated price basically gifted some free money to Qualcomm, which Qualcomm management promptly gifted to itself and other employees. You may want to attack those mutual fund managers for screwing their stakeholders. Attacking mutual fund managers for screwing stakeholders? Oh, no I couldn't do that. They are merely doing their job, which is to part people with their capital in a way that keeps them coming back for more. And they are good at this job. Whose fault is it when antelope graze in the feeding territory of vampire bats? The bats? Perhaps not. And posting all the "danger, vampire bats" signs doesn't help if the antelope don't read. Fine print notwithstanding. Besides, it isn't the mutual fund managers who issue a bazillion stock options in the first place. Nor is it mutual fund managers who negotiate screwy financial terms on bonds and take shareholders to the cleaners. And really, I'm not on the attack. Merely relentlessly brushing off the crust of tarnish from truth. If there are those who would "defend" against it coming to light, then the opposite to this defense might seem like attack. But the motive differentiates. As for the neuvo-professionals... yes, they have had their heads handed to them (in aggregate, figuratively speaking), although I submit that most handed their heads to each other. Indeed, those few with their heads most firmly attached to their shoulders are running around with the heads of others. And those without as many heads as they started with have only themselves to blame. A point of note however, it wasn't the secondary offering that misappropriated so much wealth in '00 and '01. For a lark, check out the company "Qualcomm Financial Trust I" and their 660 M$ 5 3/4 % Convertible Preferred Series A issue. Perhaps figure what that single brilliantly negotiated financial instrument ended up costing shareholders. Off balance sheet financing is alive and well in Corporate America. And once again "smart money" earns its name. Most old-timers on this board bought when Qualcomm valuation was about $4 billion. And these old timers know that they will profit handily, but only at the time when they sell their shares to someone else. In between, they are practicing mark-to-market accounting, and may - like so many of the companies in which we invested - suffer losses that are other than temporary. For example, I seem to recall this point was also brought up when the stock was at $160 a share. But in the end what matters is not just the price at which one buys, but the price at which one sells and the time elapsed between buying and selling. Time value of money and all that. By the way, you should have presented your analyses at the time the secondary offerings were made. It would have been really helpful to new investors. Speaking from experience, I think not. Helpful to others maybe yes. Enjoyable experience? Only to a massochist. Back in the early part of 2000 I was still very busy on the receiving end of this stock option fueled, upwards only bonanza of wealth transfer. It would have been quite the conflict of interest to enlighten anybody. Even myself. For if I had not donned the mind control device in the first place, then I would not have benefited at all. And in this time period I was locked in a kind of ying/yang debate between the left and right half of my brain. Knowing the prices were nuts, but seeing them become nuttier. With eyes clamped shut to the truth, I rode the crest of the wave, my adrenal glands and stomach providing considerable feedback. And then one day my stomach won and I couldn't take it any more. And then opened my eyes. I understand many people ride roller coasters with much the same physiological reaction. Only the trip is shorter and one ends up where one started. For me it was kind of like being flung out at the top and then suspended by the Matrix. Quite the rush. And quite the view. And in that moment of clarity, told my broker "sell". Then for the last 18 months I had my hands full enough with other things. And although I read quite widely on SI and elsewhere, I didn't have the time in the day to post to multiple message boards, so I chose Cisco. And started when the stock was at $70 going on $60 going on $50... And I can tell you from first hand experience that some very clever people (plus some not so clever people) spent a lot of time proving that what you and I know is well known to most serious investors is actually a myth. Go figure. And others who couldn't be bothered with proving anything for themselves spent time attacking character. Or second guessing motives. And so on. If you survey this thread you see that some things don't change. But a few others make the dialogue worthwhile. But post to more than one or two threads? You've got to be kidding. Really, I have a lot better things to do with my time than fight uphill battles with folks intent on sacrificing wealth on the altar of ego. And I should know better. Recently the market has become more receptive to the concept that up up up is not an inevitable conclusion for even the most favorite of tech darlings. Indeed, there is a growing suspicion that not all is as it seems. Which makes it easier to exclaim "The Emperor has no clothes", without being pounded into submission by a score of naked emperors. Not that I haven't been entirely silent. For example, maybe six months or so ago with the stock in the 60's I broke lurk here. And in response to some taunting, eventually I do recall offering the view that I'd sooner or later be able to buy shares at half price... on the way up. Or something like that. And look where we are at the moment. Hmmm... Anyway, after that I read the writing on the "you're most unwelcome" mat and decided I'd save a few people the trouble of putting me on ignore. I don't have to attract the same kind of reception that others with my POV seem to receive, merely perhaps because of how they express it. So maybe I might have been helpful. But the evidence is all around you that help is not well received. But even though I don't post to many boards, I lurk on several dozen. This is one of them. And a lot of great stuff gets discussed here. And some very smart folks have taught me a lot. Thank you all. Every once in a while someone makes a remark that makes my fingers itch to reply. And these days I am in the mood to scratch the itch. Glad you enjoy the posts, I have fun writing. John.