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: Rocket Scientist who wrote (116213)	3/30/2002 9:57:21 AM
From: limtex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

RS and thread - Since its December introduction, the global positioning system phone service has won over 400,000 subscribers, KDDI says. They haven't even got off the ground yet.....fantastic. OK KDDI let it rip Best, L

To: Rocket Scientist who wrote (116213)	4/1/2002 9:14:02 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Respond to of 152472

<<your idea of equating dilution to 10% of EPS is very creative>> well, I picked it to force agreement with your 3% figure during the years when EPS is assumed to be growing fast (30% per year). i agree with you that it is difficult to gauge future dilution rates. however, judging by your historical figures, you show 2.0% dilution last year, when EPS growth was less than 20% (i think it was more like flat). the point here is that the dilution does not seem to bear a relation to EPS growth. also, i'm not sure why, but it seems your figures show no option grants for 1999, which doesn't sound right. for an interesting view on how to value a stock trading at 10 times revenues, here's what Sun's Scott McNealy said about his own stock (SUNW) in a businessweek interview: ...two years ago we were selling at 10 times revenues when we were at $64. At 10 times revenues, to give you a 10-year payback, I have to pay you 100% of revenues for 10 straight years in dividends. That assumes I can get that by my shareholders. That assumes I have zero cost of goods sold, which is very hard for a computer company. That assumes zero expenses, which is really hard with 39,000 employees. That assumes I pay no taxes, which is very hard. And that assumes you pay no taxes on your dividends, which is kind of illegal. And that assumes with zero R&D for the next 10 years, I can maintain the current revenue run rate. Now, having done that, would any of you like to buy my stock at $64? Do you realize how ridiculous those basic assumptions are? You don't need any transparency. You don't need any footnotes. What were you thinking?