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: qveauriche who wrote (118842)	5/16/2002 12:10:30 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 152472

Does anybody have a monopoly on objectivity? Yes, I do. I'm getting patented as we speak. VBG. Since we are out of the box, you might want to take a look at Air Fiber, a San Diego private company in which Q is an investor. Not mobile but good last mile technology and, psst....listen, let me whisper, unlike Wi-Fi, there's a business case for it as it is carrier-controlled. airfiber.com

To: qveauriche who wrote (118842)	5/16/2002 12:12:09 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

hi qveau, nice, thoughtful post, as usual. just a comment on your opening point... My point is a simple one, and that is that its difficult to discern any greater objectivity among the QCOM bears than is seen from the QCOM bulls there is probably some truth to this. just because bulls have been wrong on some issues (like the direction of the stock price) doesn't mean bears can't be wrong as well. which is one of the reasons i try to retain some mental flexibility (i.e., an openness to at least the possibility of switching from one camp to the next, which requires considering the possibility that one's own current assessment is wrong). but i think in many cases, the bulls' objectivity may be a bit biased due to their personal interest in the stock's rise. i think many people could not stand to think that QCOM is, for example, fairly valued at 25 or 30. whereas somebody who does not currently have a (large) financial stake may be more willing to entertain such possibilities. as one who has been more or less "bearish" here the past couple of years (and having been a non-owner of QCOM for most of that period), i feel i have been free of the "ownership bias" that may have affected some longs. which is not to say i have not had other biases, such as the "pride bias", wherein one wants pride of place or whatever for seeing an outcome match one's opinion. but for me, in any case, pride goeth a heckuva lot sooner than my pocketbook. which is to say i am more than willing to change my opinion if i see a financial benefit (in going long, for example). so i think bears (who do not have a financial interest in being bearish) can perhaps be more objective than those bulls who simply cannot bear to think (given the financial consequences) that they are wrong. i consider myself to be now a bit more bullish than i was in the past (thanks, of course, to the fall in the stock price), although i guess i am still bearish as well. which is why i have a bullish/bearish position in the stock (the buy-write i mentioned).

To: qveauriche who wrote (118842)	5/16/2002 12:55:45 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Good post. But how would we recognize objectivity when it stares us in the face? <g/ng> Subjectively speaking, it occurs to me that being in and out of a stock, based on entry and exit targets and defending these (changing) targets based on investment return criteria that boils down to dollars is a darn sight more "objective" than steadfastly holding the opinion that the stock is a "good investment" [Edit: or "bad investment"] while it varies in price by an order of magnitude over three years. Of course, that may merely be my biased point of view. John

To: qveauriche who wrote (118842)	5/16/2002 1:08:01 PM
From: pinhi	Respond to of 152472

Excellent post QV. I would like to have all those questions answered if possible. eom Pinhi