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: rkral who wrote (118660)	5/11/2002 3:07:49 PM
From: samim anbarcioglu	Respond to of 152472

<<I recall one or more governments postponing the due date for auction monies, other than the down payment, until infrastructure installations are complete.>> Ron, the Euro carriers' main fault in all of this was that tehy did not think of putting contingency clauses in the sale contracts. Contingency on the usability, commercial exploitability of the property (spectrum). People write in contingency clauses in their contracts when they buy a house, but these guys never did that, They never doubted the ability of NOK ERICY etc. to deliver the equipment which would enable them to exploit the new spectrum. Of course it turns out that NOK, ERICY etc. can't deliver for quite some time.

To: rkral who wrote (118660)	5/11/2002 9:42:40 PM
From: John Biddle	Respond to of 152472

I am talking about the carrier's inability to obtain a return on significant assets There was no fraud going on when the European governments sold the 3G spectrum to the carriers. The governments have not done anything since which undermined the value of the licenses sold. It's just that things have not worked out the way the carriers anticipated. The fact that this miscalculation on the part of the carriers resulted in admittedly huge losses is not sufficient reason to take money from someone else and fix the carrier's mistake. Look, there were lots of people, on this thread for example, who believed that the monies expended were a mistake. They expected that WCDMA would fail as it has done, even if they didn't predict the worldwide telecom meltdown which has increased the pain. .. because 3G manufacturers haven't performed as promised relative to these assets .. and governments sold (don't know about collected) monies for these assets prematurely .. IMHO. What do you mean when you say "as promised". Manufacturers are only beholden to those with whom they have contracts. I am unaware of any such broken contracts, but if they're out there the carriers have a source of relief. If not, then they have no right to expect any company to act in a way contrary to that company's perceived interest. Those interests can change over time as circumstances change, as management changes or as their perceptions and understandings of technology improves. That shouldn't come as a surprise. I did buy QCOM and the stock did go down. Sue Qualcomm? Of course not. Not their fault. Not the markets fault either. I alone made the decision of when to buy. Sorry to see you take a loss, and heartened to see you take ownership for your actions. But there's a big difference re the Euro spectrum auction. When I wanted some QCOM stock, I didn't have to buy it from Qualcomm during a one-time sale on a weekend set by Qualcomm. True. Maybe I should have asked if you sued the seller. My point, unclear as I may have been, was that as you point out, you were responsible, not the market, not Qualcomm. There was no fraud, no illegal activity. Q may or may not have run its business well over the last 2 years, but it doesn't matter as far as responsibility for the gain or loss on your stock. You knew or should have known (obviously you did) the risks of making an investment in a public company. Same with the carrier's investment in spectrum. Contrary to your belief, they were not forced to buy spectrum at what so far have proved to be very high levels. Indeed, had one done exactly that, and pulled out when prices got too high, they would be seen as precient and lauded for not making such a dumb mistake. I admit it might only be dumb in hindsight, but you cannot legislate risk out of the marketplace and have a marketplace worth having. And what if you had bought it from Q? Someone bought a pile from them when Q was added to the S&P 500. Do they have a legitimate expectation to be made whole by Q for their losses? "Would you be screaming for the carriers to double up their payments if the value of the spectrum had gone up? No. Why not. Wouldn't this be carriers profiting at the expense of the government. Wouldn't it be fair? "Even the Euros can't abide that one." I don't think you have authority to speak for the Euros. :-) This one you got right, but only as far as you went.<g> While I do not have even one scintilla of authority to speak on behalf of even one European government, I maintain my right to draw conclusions about them and their actions, just as I do about those of others. And they about me. The free marketplace of ideas is even more important than the free marketplace for goods and services. John