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: the_rich_janitor who wrote (125817)	12/3/2002 2:41:22 AM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Your (John's) questions have been answered many times over Sounds like a terribly presumptuous thing to say. There are some QCOM longs who are interested in more than hype and enjoy having John around to challenge their assumptions. I have found myself in that position myself before. There are other QCOM threads for those that want to hear only sanitized, affirmation commentary. Huey

To: the_rich_janitor who wrote (125817)	12/6/2002 11:19:30 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

trj, strange you have difficulty figuring out the reason for my existence on this board. I've posted many times in response to that question and if you haven't bothered to believe me before you won't bother to believe me again. At some point I think you [plural] would either learn that it's futile to question my motives, or move on to more fruitful discussion. <ggg> My motives are the same as anyone else here. This is a thread about INVESTMENT in Qualcomm. I think the short form is "buy range". Which I happen to peg at a lower dollar value than the stock trades at. Others peg it higher. If persistence in an opinion is a fault, well some guy who hasn't changed his opinion about the merit of investment since '97 is hardly one to criticize. Particularly given the gyrations in price since then. Back then CDMA was going to be the dominant technology. Billions of handsets were going to ship all over the planet. And since then the CDMA story hasn't changed, except that the timeframe has been pushed out a bit. But INVESTMENT is the cross product of the story and the stock price. It's not just about the story. Because the merit of goodness in an investment decision is the degree to which one profits. And this isn't 1997, it's today. So we have to decide whether buying at 41 or so is a good idea or not. Or whatever the price is at the moment. The fact is that I'm here participating in a long-standing debate about whether or not Qualcomm is (was, will be...) a good investment. Given Qualcomm's volatility, I suggest that such debate is widespread and well founded. I do believe that one day it will be priced close to what I call a good buy range. And then I will invest. It's very simple. But until then I will continue to observe and comment. Particularly when goofus logic is thrown around with words to the effect that Qualcomm at these prices is the best investment opportunity bar none. Which pure hyperbole is either the sign of a fool longing to be parted with his money, or an oracle. One being more likely than the other. Second, I think you misunderstand my position on QCOM as an investment versus Qualcomm as a company and CDMA as a technology. I believe CDMA in one form or another will be THE dominant 3G technology. Always have. I have tremendous respect for Qualcomm (the company) for what it has achieved in bringing an excellent technology from underdog to world domination. No small feat. I remain a technologist at heart. But it may come as a shock to you but it is perfectly reasonable to hold these views, while at the same time also saying buying QCOM at $40 is running the risk of being more charitable than intended. Over the long term. And even more shocking that I think QCOM's price has some short term upwards opportunity to it. This has almost nothing to do with CDMA and everything to do with the business model - namely where money comes from and where it goes and how these factors are likely to unfold. Furthermore, it can't be decoupled from the current stock price and analyzed in a vacuum. The last few years should have taught anyone with their eyes open that just because earnings are higher this quarter than last quarter doesn't mean the stock price should go up. And that just because a company doesn't have the profits necessary to justify its stock price that the price can't go up through the roof. It's rather naive of you (and others on the thread) to assume I have a pessimistic view of CDMA's long-term potential as a fundamental technology just because I don't think buying the company's stock at $40 is the smartest thing an investor could do with their money. I am modelling a billion CDMA handsets per year in 2010 when I discuss Qualcomm's current valuation. You suggest I'm being pessimistic? So, you think it will be more? Has it ever crossed your mind that THIS ISN'T ENOUGH SUCCESS TO JUSTIFY EXPECTING GOOD RETURNS FROM A $40 STOCK PRICE? To be even more clear, continued volumes at a billion handsets a year is what I'm projecting as the kind of volumes necessary to deliver a 5% ROI for an investment at $40, a 9% ROI for an investment on $23 and an 11% ROI for an investment on $17. If you've been following my posts for the last couple of years or so, you might even recognize some of these numbers. Maybe, just maybe, you'll be able to set aside an infatuation with the company for just a moment and realize that it is possible to pay way too much for a slice of even the greatest of companies. If not, then the bubble didn't teach you very much at all. A lot of us have been invested since before 1997 and the one thing that we will all tell you is that the story has always and continues to, hold firm. Yes. And back then a lot of you were expecting potential future price targets for your investment at a split-adjusted price less than $20 per share. And now with the same business story holding firm, you suggest that the company should command a higher target price? Same story, same fair price. What's wrong with that? John