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: Stock Farmer who wrote (126143)	12/22/2002 2:44:27 PM
From: hueyone	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

John, thanks for taking the time to respond to Techinvestor. Nice job. I thought about doing the same , but since he entered the discussion alleging that I was deliberately being less than honest, I chose not to bother. Have a Merry Christmas!! Best, Huey

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (126143)	12/22/2002 3:36:47 PM
From: KyrosL	Respond to of 152472

John, QCOM investors should be grateful to you for all these accounting lessons. It's amazing what ignorance of basic accounting can do to people's perceptions of companies, especially if accompanied with a dollop of hype -- or FUD, as the case may be. Kyros

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (126143)	12/22/2002 4:14:43 PM
From: kech	Respond to of 152472

Huey started this as why is the book value so low? The so called "silly bugger semantics" have answered this that most of the value of Qualcomm is not going to show up in the book value per share. You seem to agree with this. So now you agree that book value per share isn't a great way to value Qualcomm but still want to focus on how the book value was created since a big part of the answer to this is that much of the book value is paid in equity not retained earnings. Ok so a chunk was raised by $ 1 billion for Snaptrack. $1 billion for selling equity at higher prices than today. That leaves $2.9 billion of paid in equity. Since I am better off (as a long term shareholder) by each of the first two transactions these don't bother me. So how did this remaining $2.9 billion get raised? Again money was paid when it went public. Subtract that. Subtract what it paid to buy Omnitracs. Your point is that the book value isn't raised by profits and that much of the profits have been spent on investments that have been written off against retained earnings. I think most of us already know that (Globalstar, Vesper, Leap, Inquam). These have all been written off of paid in equity to some degree. Globalstar was a dud, vesper is still a possible survivor, Leap Debt converted to Pegaso debt and was written off but returned as a viable credit and Inquam is still working its magic in the CDMA450 world). The answer to your question really isn't that important since the focus should be on the current and future earnings power and Qualcom's stated intention to not have to proceed with too many more CDMA development projects which have used written off much of the retained earnings and that is what makes the paid in Equity look large relative to retained earnings.

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (126143)	12/22/2002 7:15:30 PM
From: techlvr	Respond to of 152472

I would think that a good test of whether the QCOM model is actually working will be to see if they indeed do start to stockpile cash on a regular basis going forward. All indications seem to be pointing in that direction, though time will tell.

To: Stock Farmer who wrote (126143)	12/30/2002 11:28:27 AM
From: hueyone	Respond to of 152472

The rest of the silly-buggers semantics about Qualcomm's intangible assets not showing up on the balance sheet is laugable. They show up under market cap. Where they belong. As the difference between what the company has already earned for its shareholders and what they expect it to earn. The point being that if these intangible assets are properly valued, then this is what shareholders will get from them. Same as every other company on the planet. Agreed. Best, Huey