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: Stock Farmer who wrote (114326)	2/25/2002 4:13:05 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I suppose my attempts at humor didn't work. No insults intended. Peace, bro'. As to pro-forma, I have stated my views on it but it has been a long time ago (and no one noticed) so here goes again: Pro-forma has its place but anyone who relies on it entirely is out of his mind. Using GAAP is better. Reading the SEC stuff, no matter how complex, is best. Criminality in accounting is not, has not, and never will be confined to high tech companies. It goes wherever human nature travels. And that's everywhere, including stodgy old economy companies and high tech ones. Ever try to understand a stodgy insurance company's financials? Do you know why Reliance Ins. Co, a stodgy old timer, is in rehabilitation? Wherever the opportunity for shenanigans exists, shenanigans will take place. The point is that unless you are willing to unravel an enormous mass of financial information on a particular company, you will never truly understand it. And there is no sector immune from this truism. To focus on one sector or one company (which is fairly pure) is unfair. There is no guilt by association here. The Q does quite well when the microscope is put to it. The SEC stuff takes some slogging through. But at the end of reading it, I think you'll conclude that everything is OK. And given that wireless has gone through 2.5G's in a decade, that means we'd better be hoping that 8G depends as much on Qualcomm's patents as 3G does. Given what wireless has gone through is a blessing in disguise to Q. Here's why: All the troubles with 3G, mostly European and UMTS-based, are going to make carriers hopefully think thrice before making huge investments again, prolonging 3G's life. If this is true, and I really don't know enough about 4G to comment, the flow of 3G royalties might go on for a longer time frame than anyone ever anticipated. This is wishful thinking, I'll admit, but with a bit of skeleton under it. At which point we will not even break even against a T-Bill at the current price. That's a good one. When Q gets a more or less 5% of the price of all 3G handsets sold in the world for at leat 10-12 years, sells many if not most of the 3g ASICs, and is realizing total margins on all businesses nearing 40%, or more [my guess], I suspect that the return will exceed T-bill yields substantially. The stock price will reflect this. What have you done to calculate 3G royalties? What are your assumptions?

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (114326)	2/27/2002 12:10:56 PM
From: David E. Taylor	Respond to of 152472

John: Could you either post or PM to me how you arrived at the "option cost" of $49.263 million for Q1 2002? Did you arrive at this "cost" the same way as in previous posts, i.e. (# of options granted in Q1) x (some average closing price of QCOM stock during Q1)? TIA, David T.