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: carranza2 who wrote (118851)	5/16/2002 1:34:49 PM
From: Don Edgerton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

RE WC from telecomtv.com Wireless Korean CDMA2000, W-CDMA to do battle at World Cup 16/05/02 09:03 - by Staff Reporter 3G CDMA will get its 15 minutes of fame at the FIFA World Cup with KTF and SK Telecom both showcasing spanking new 1X EV-DO services capable of video-ondemand, streaming media and a multitude of multimedia content. But that is not going to be the only 3G technology being displayed at the games. Both SKT and KTF and their 3G license holding affiliates – KTicom and SK IMT – are both preparing trial W-CDMA systems for the games. LG Electronics’ network systems unit will be supplying 18 W-CDMA base stations to KTicom to set up a trial network around the Sangam World Cup stadium that will be supported by fully functional video camera-equipped W-CDMA handsets from LGE’s handset division. According to Yon Chul-Heum, vice president at LGE’s UMTS systems research lab, both KTicom and SK IMT are expected to roll out W-CDMA service next year, despite media reports citing SKT officials to the contrary. KTicom wants to use WCDMA as a way to take over the number one position in the market, a Korean source said. KTicom will launch W-CDMA as early as the first quarter of 2003, he added. In return, SK IMT is now stepping up their W-CDMA schedule in order not to fall behind. SKT will put their W-CDMA contract up for tender in July. Samsung and Ericsson are expected to be the third bidders for the contract. Yon says that W-CDMA has some advantages when deployed to support multimedia content. “For applications like video telephony, the 1.25 MHz carrier of 2G CDMA means that each frequency area can only support three users,” Yon said. “With CDMA’s soft-handover feature, that means users will be connected to multiple cell sites, hence the number of users you can have in any given area is severely limited.” Unless hard-handover is adopted in CDMA, video telephony is not possible. W-CDMA’s 5MHz carrier allows it to support about 20 video telephony users per frequency area. Sources at SKT say they expect W-CDMA to be the cash cow for the operator by 2005, replacing today’s CDMA systems. Eventually SKT will probably replace their 800MHz network with W-CDMA, they said.

To: carranza2 who wrote (118851)	5/16/2002 1:44:23 PM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Carranza2: "...he's probably only a lucky guy." Reminds me of a line I remember from my boyhood: "Success is a matter of luck. Ask any failure." Food for thought, no?

To: carranza2 who wrote (118851)	5/17/2002 1:32:02 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Respond to of 152472

"How can one be objective if the market is essentially a crap shoot?" Easy. The same way one is objective about a crap shoot. First, the house wins. Second, there are ways to maximize the potential of walking away with more than you came with, but no way to avoid the risk of walking away with less. That is, of course, if you believe the market is a crap shoot. I do not. Personally, I view it as a kind of financial strip poker where the cards are dealt face down, but some must be flipped face up in order to bid. With the added twist that face down cards are wild. More fun if played in mixed company. Financially speaking, of course. With idiots at the table, it is possible to make a killing. And there are always idiots at this table. Occasionally however, I find myself to be the idiot at the table. At which point the prudent thing to do is fold. Or get stripped. I chose the latter more than once. Oops. I've still got those 350 shares of Laidlaw. Discussing this issue today, a good friend of mine remarked "objectivity is the ability to recognize when one is wrong." It does not prevent the process of being wrong in the first place (mistakes are human). It does not mitigate any of the consequences of the spilt-milk variety (it is not prescience). Nor does it prevent serendipitous correctness. Those who have taken a multiple-answer test where they have chosen answer (a) for entirely wrong reasons but still scored correctly... you know what I mean. It just provides opportunity for taking corrective action while there is time. I think traders know these as "stop loss" and "take profit". That's where judgement, skill and discipline take over. Does luck play a part? Sure. We play the hand we're dealt to a certain extent. But we make our own luck in this world. Or perhaps more digestible: it's easy to do things that increase the odds of needing more luck than the other guy. Then there are times when the market is irrational. The recent bubble is a great example. Would not an objective investor recognizing the bubble ride it for whatever it was worth? Absolutely. At least to some degree. Several of those dudes post to this thread. Objectively, however, how does one know when to step off the rocket before gravity takes its toll? Not precisely the right analogy, I suspect, because we have to ignore the "Ok, now what" that would go through the mind of someone who jumps off a rocket at any altitude <g>... But if restricted to stay in metaphor, my answer would be "any time before the rocket fails to miss the ground is better than any time thereafter". No need to get off at the top. Half way up is just as good as half way down. Maybe even better from a time-value-of-money perspective. Take this bubble as an example. Those who got out pretty much any time in 2000 are better off than those who hung on through to today. That's a window 20% as big as the period from Jan 1998 through Dec 2002. It's not like the market just gapped up one morning in '98 and gapped down late in 2000. And it's not like the warning signs were available to some select few. The whole thing unfolded in the open, over a great many months. Lots of time for those who saw what was happening to react and reposition. I suggest that "objectivity" exists only in the larger sense i.e., the dividing line between fools and reasonable investors. Judgment and luck take over in the smaller sense. Isn't this confusing being "right" with being "objective"? I agree with you that Lady Luck plays a part. Big time. She guides the hand we are dealt. Then judgement and skill determine how well we minimize the need for Luck to be on our side in order to eke out advantage. And objectivity stands in the middle. It is called for so that we do not handicap our judgement or misdirect our skill. But we can still draw a bad hand. And still lose. It is quite possible to lose objectively. And to win with eyes wired closed. Because sometimes objectivity isn't worth beans. Take the flip of a fair coin. Whether one is biased to choose heads or tails really doesn't come into the picture. Is the most "objective" investor one who makes the most money? In the very, very long run, perhaps so. In the near and middle time frames, he's probably only a lucky guy. Here however I agree with you more fully than you do. I would say "In the long run, probably so". Like any other process of selection, Economic Darwinism takes time to play out. Even after 10 coin tosses, of every thousand players, one will likely have won ten times in a row. For every 3000 fund managers out there, we should expect almost a hundred to have beaten the average 5 years running, and a couple to have beaten the average 10 years running. Finding one that's beaten the average 13 years running might indicate skill. Or a fund manager who is too dumb to quit while ahead. Objectivity has its place. But it isn't the be-all and end all. I agree. Back to my original question, how do we recognize it. Been thinking about that all day. Best I could come up with is that like beauty, it's difficult to define inclusively and more recognizable in its absence. Even in retrospect. This is a good discussion, by the way, and has triggered much thought. Thanks, John