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 (122144)	7/25/2002 5:20:41 PM
From: DiB	Respond to of 152472

>Do it for the children LOL.

To: qveauriche who wrote (122144)	7/25/2002 5:42:19 PM
From: 16yearcycle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

The reality is that these results are far above what anyone could have expected. Easily the best report in this e season. Edit: Qlgc did have a great report too, but that's about it for "growth." Not that it will matter to the stock price

To: qveauriche who wrote (122144)	7/25/2002 8:53:44 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

grit your teeth, admit it and pound it out on your keyboard. QCOM had a great quarter. ok, here goes....QCOM had a ggggggggggggrrr... ahem. -g- actually, what the market thinks is much more important than what i think. the reaction in AH was quite positive, but it's hard to know how much of that might have been short covering (we've had a few big-name shorts come out against the stock lately, and we can imagine more piggy-backed. as somebody who does a fair amount of shorting (not QCOM so far), i can tell you that shorts are always nervous and they may cover on any hint of good news, or just the idea that bad news has already been priced in for the time being. you might ask yourself if whatever was revealed on the CC really was such new information that it caused completely new longs to bid the stock up 10%. my guess is it was shorts, BWDIK. know you think the stock is overvalued. I know you think the Naz is going to 500. I know you think the common is going to be diluted to oblivion well, these are just things that i think, and i could be wrong. in fact, it is prudent to believe i WILL be wrong, on at least some points. the recognition that one could be wrong is a good reason to diversify. hence, earlier in the week, i upped my equity position. this was hard to do not only because the market was going down every day (so it felt like throwing money away, which is a good way to feel imo when one is investing...at least i think that is better than feeling anxiety and chasing the market); but also because i still believe (or rather, the belief has a strong presence in my head, regardless of whether there is really an "i" who is doing the believing...but that is digressing a bit even for me) that the market is overpriced, or at least priced no more attractively than less risky assets like TIPS--which state of affairs violates Rule Number 1 of Investing, i.e., that reward and risk go hand in hand.... so in spite of these things (the bad-gut feeling of investing in a bearish market, and the bad-head feeling of investing when i still have a strong sense that equities are overvalued), i did make investments in a number of index funds (including the SPX, which i guess makes me a QCOM shareholder after a fashion :), and this was done expressly because i believe what i "think" (about QCOM, the market, etc.) could be wrong. today in the WSJ there was an op-ed by Jeremy Siegel (i believe Jon Koplik posted it here) where he argues that stocks are fine and dandy. he says they should return 8.6% real return over the next decade. i find this hard to believe when one considers that the Gordon Equation has quite accurately explained equity returns since 1926 as a combination of dividend yield and growth. i think there are more holes in Siegel's argument than in Swiss cheese (he "dares" anybody to look him in the eye and say 4.4% 10yr T's will outperform equities over the next decade! personally i wouldn't touch the T's, but i've had my hands on a number of TIPS, which i think will give equities a run for their money.) to review, the G.E., in real terms from today, takes the 2% div yield on the SPX (yield higher now thanks to the tanking SPX), and adds to it real growth of, to be charitable, 2%. so, say 4% real. the 10yr TIPS (3% coupon issued 7/15) was about 2.75% real return as of yesterday, so a premium of 1.25% would obtain. this is a far cry from the historical outperformance of 5%, but it's better than nothing. Siegel doesn't exactly explain where his magical 8.6% real return is supposed to come from (given that the SPX PE is still quite high, and he plays games like backing out tech stocks and options, etc. to try to get the PE down below 20). it was hardly a compelling argument in my book, but heck, he may be right (i think his only hope is for some tremendous profit growth). and so might the QCOM longs. but i have yet to be overwhelmed by the logic of either party's arguments. still, i am keeping a toe in the water as far as equities are concerned.