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: queuecom who wrote (123462)	8/23/2002 9:39:12 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I repeat, show me where ONE executive, operator or manufacturer, has put his company's or its shareholders interests ahead of his own ahh, you're starting to get the picture. there's an inherent conflict of interests between mgmt and owners. owners do not trust mgmt, which is why mgmt must be kept on a short leash. this is the reason dividends were invented... I believe the only one is Dr J and his staff. oh no! ROFL! i'd explain it to you in plain English, but your handle indicates you might not be receptive to the truth. but perhaps somethings are more important than truth. like being happy. believing the home team is the best in the whole wide world. kind of like believing our god is best. or our stock is best. but if it makes you happy, who am i to stand in your way?

To: queuecom who wrote (123462)	8/23/2002 11:03:19 AM
From: Uncle Frank	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

>> Because of this , and not Q's technical wizzardry, the Q will remain a monkey and never, in this decade, become a gorilla. Gorilla-speak is out of fashion at the moment, as is long term investing, but as a native speaker of that language, please allow me to correct your use of the terminology. As far as 2G is concerned, Q was never a Gorilla, but is a powerful Chimp, which is a giant step above a Monkey. The expectation is that Q will become the Gorilla of 3G, but the financial woes of the industry, lack of a killer ap, and resulting slow roll out will cause that mutation to be slower than Gorilla Gamers had hoped. Actually, it already is. Patience, my friend. uf@ancienttongues.com

To: queuecom who wrote (123462)	8/23/2002 12:10:43 PM
From: Sam Salomon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Some CEOs HAVE put the company's interests ahead of their own. I would name Buffett (who could charge more than $100'000 salary AND does not need any options in order to be persuaded not to switch to another company)and Munger, who runs Wesco Financial, but also less well known ones, e.g. Carl Reichardt who used to run Wells Fargo and under whose tenure the stock rose 10-fold (but did NOT crash from these levels). I could name others but most would not be well known in the tech community. I agree, though, that they seem to be much less frequent. Many have been large owners themselves, but have acquired their shares out of their own money and not through options, stock awards or extremely large bonuses. It is IMO, however, well worth the huge effort, to search for these diamonds, especially if they are able managers in well positioned companies, too I repeat, show me where ONE executive, operator or manufacturer, has put his company's or its shareholders interests ahead of his own.

To: queuecom who wrote (123462)	8/23/2002 11:43:03 PM
From: verdad	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

I couldn't disagree more. Those who delve too deeply into that type of behavior may benefit in the short term, but pay the piper at some point. BTW, when DID one of the founders of QCOM (and a close personal friend of Dr J's from MIT), Andrew Viterbi, leave and announce his retirement? Right after the stock peaked in Dec '99. Likewise insider transactions always occurred in Dec '99 and Dec '00 (and other dates) to coincide with relative peaks in stock prices. How DO these people always consistently sell near the peaks? I guess that's why they're the execs, right? I mean, didn't co-founder Harvey White buy himself 200,000 shares of LWIN when it started at around $2 a share (and might have cashed out at over $100--price is now under $1)? Didn't Richard Sulpizio in spring of '99 said, "We are NOT selling the infrastructure division"? Wouldn't shareholders that acted upon that information, might have felt misled? If I remember right, when G* was DOA, Bernie and Irwin were singing its praises as G* stock cleared $40 a share only to later distance themselves from the project. Guess they totally missed the boat on that one...it happens...but then why all the funky G* accting? QCOM stock went up 2600%...likely due to Lehman Bros. & BT Alex Brown successfully mkting the stock not real value--where did the forecast data come from to rationalize $1000/share? If you bought stock at the beginning of '99, your first born might be named 'Irwin'; however, if you bought stock at the end of '99, you might hate QCOM stadium. Likewise, if you were the QCOM field engineer that almost went to jail for life in Russia (Richard Bliss) you might not feel so great about mgt. Or if, in some Companies (not mentioning any names) you were one of the foreign nationals almost set up by his boss to present a Company appointed agent with a bribe to seal the deal (and nearly prosecuted under the Foreign Corruption Act), you'd think mgt wasn't all that ethical and pushed the envelope too much. But it was always the middle mgrs doing that stuff (yet they were hired by top execs). You learn top mgt delegates such things and, if necessary, feigns ignorance later. Hence, they appear reputable--ALWAYS. You think the stock always naturally goes up and down like a yo-yo to coincide with mgt's strategic moves and industry announcements? Relationships are the fundamental currency of all business. Trust is fundamental to all relationships. Violate that and your business falls apart. Some are better at deceiving than others, while all who participate in these types of shenanigans will enjoy the benefits but also eventually suffer. Having said that, though, judgements are positional; it depends where you sit--nothing (and no one) is all good, or bad. However, regardless of these points, QCOM's success may or may not be realized for various reasons.