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: Jim Mullens who wrote (125954)	12/10/2002 2:26:16 PM
From: Kayaker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

For immediate release The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to keep its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at 1-1/4 percent. The Committee continues to believe that this accommodative stance of monetary policy, coupled with still robust underlying growth in productivity, is providing important ongoing support to economic activity. The limited number of incoming economic indicators since the November meeting, taken together, are not inconsistent with the economy working its way through its current soft spot. In these circumstances, the Committee believes that, against the background of its long-run goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth and of the information currently available, the risks are balanced with respect to the prospects for both goals for the foreseeable future. Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were Alan Greenspan, Chairman; William J. McDonough, Vice Chairman; Ben S. Bernanke, Susan S. Bies; Roger W. Ferguson, Jr.; Edward M. Gramlich; Jerry L. Jordan; Donald L. Kohn, Robert D. McTeer, Jr.; Mark W. Olson; Anthony M. Santomero, and Gary H. Stern. federalreserve.gov

To: Jim Mullens who wrote (125954)	12/10/2002 4:01:33 PM
From: samim anbarcioglu	Respond to of 152472

deleted

To: Jim Mullens who wrote (125954)	12/12/2002 12:20:10 AM
From: hueyone	Respond to of 152472

Jim, We have about beat this PE thing to death, but a few last(?) comments: Huey wrote--Imo, the "E" in PEs traditionally refers to trailing twelve month (ttm) GAAP earnings unless otherwise specified. Jim wrote--It’s my understanding that the “E” can refer to several periods when evaluating the PE of a company (ttm, 2past/2fwd qtrs, current fy, etc.) Imo, your statement and my statement are not mutually exclusive and are both the truth. In fact, I am willing to be even more forceful with my above statement and say this: "The default definition for PE, in absence of an additional definition, is the current price divided by the sum of the four preceding quarters' GAAP earnings." That is why when one clicks on Multex, Quicken, Yahoo and most financial sites, the Qualcomm PE is listed as 90 without an additional definition for the PE. Having said that, I will admit that in recent years it has become more common for “talking heads" to verbally refer to PEs based on other definitions than the traditional one without first qualifying what that other definition is. Imho, however, it is very misleading to make an argument that a stock is reasonably valued while employing the two widely disparate PE definitions in the underlying analysis as you did---one PE based on QCOM’s forward pro forma earnings and the other PE based on Value Line’s trailing twelve month earnings--- which in addition to being “trailing”, I suspect are more akin to GAAP earnings. The difference between the two PE definitions you used is significant enough to take the punch out of your argument, which is dependent on these two PEs being an apples to apples comparison, which they are not. Nevertheless, I very much appreciate your ongoing efforts to share your analysis and thinking regarding the company. Enjoyed your post responding to the Mock and Tauli article as well. Best, Huey

To: Jim Mullens who wrote (125954)	12/12/2002 1:23:17 AM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

. I believe if you use the major “analyst” earnings/ target reporting services (First Call, Zacks) you will find that their (and the “analysts”) estimates are based on pro forma (recurring operations) and exclude non-recurring gains/losses. I believe you are right that Zacks and First Call give forward earnings estimates based on estimated pro forma earnings. However, there is a huge problem these days in accepting the idea that most companies’ reported pro forma earnings equate to "recurring operations" as you do, and a big problem in accepting the notion that pro forma earnings exclude non-recurring gains/losses. In recent years, many companies have taken extreme liberties in their reporting of pro forma earnings, which unlike GAAP earnings or Standard Poor Core Earnings, lack any standards. Usually companies simply manipulate the numbers to make themselves look good, hopefully pump up the stock price and allow the insiders to cash out their stock options. Pro forma numbers don’t go into the SEC filings and they don’t have to meet any standards. Supposed "one time" charges such as inventory write downs and restructuring charges are excluded by many companies on a recurring basis. Investment gains are often considered to be part of business operations and included while investment losses are considered one time. As I recall, and as I have posted on this thread, Qualcomm had this very problem a couple of years ago with excluding investment losses, Globalstar I believe, but including investment gains from some of their other technology investments. I remember this problem with QCOM (and other companies) was covered in an essay at the Motley Fool. I hear QCOM has made their pro forma reporting much more useful in the last year or two, but they still don’t include stock options expense in their reporting, and that is an important business expense at Qualcomm that shouldn’t be overlooked in my opinion. Best, Huey