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.

Pastimes : The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neeka who wrote (5734)	2/12/2003 12:51:55 AM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12247

Wives of men with scratchy faces probably slap their husbands' faces (or, is it just "face" ?) more frequently that wives of men with soft, smooth faces. Therefore, "scratchy" men have "shaken baby syndrome," and die. Jon.

To: Neeka who wrote (5734)	2/12/2003 3:31:39 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 12247

1/ You had me there for a minute M, as to why I'd written Qualcomm instead of QUALCOMM, which I've always been quite pedantic about. I recalled that Ramsey had started the S&P500 stream and I thought I'd start a junk stream for pollution [at a time when there was rabble by the horde]. So I copied it exactly, but added Write What You Like. As you can see, it's a copy of Ramsey's original: Subject 29581 2/ Meanwhile, 5c a share dividend isn't $1, but it's better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick. It'll help people realize that QUALCOMM is for real and profits are not proforma. 5c x 800 million shares = $40 million. What a derisory payout. I suppose if I want more income, I can sell shares to them when they do a share buy-back [if they are doing so at a peak in pricing]. But I'd prefer to just get a big, fat, dividend cheque and not be diluted. Paying people who want to dump the company by selling shares seems to be paying the wrong people. It would be better to have a low share price - so people who want to convert their dividends to an increased holding could buy more shares with a low P:E ratio. The company buying shares back at market prices will push prices up and increase earnings per share, but for NZ tax reasons, I'd rather have it all as dividends. 3/ It was conspicuous in the annual report how QUALCOMM was at pains to emphasize that earnings were GAAP and stock options were shown in detail. No accounting flim-flam in that report. Irwin signed up straight away to guarantee the accounts - which perhaps surprised some people but I would have been very surprised if he hadn't. 4/ The only comment I'd make is that the Independent Accountants are a waste of money. I mean the ones who "signed" their audit report with their company's name in handwriting, instead of the actual person who was in charge of the QUALCOMM audit signing it with their own signature with their name printed below. Actually, the President of the Independent Accountants should sign it and take responsibility. Price Waterhouse Coopers LLP was the company. Message 18484199 I say change auditors, or just do away with them and go with QUALCOMM's own accounting standards. Price Waterhouse Coopers are tainting QUALCOMM with their dubious reputation and fake "signature". Next report, I say put somebody's name there, signed, or leave them out of the report. Mqurice

To: Neeka who wrote (5734)	2/12/2003 3:50:13 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 12247

Epidemiologists and others doing studies are so sloppy! <However, even after all the factors were considered, researchers found they were had a 70% increased risk of having a stroke and a 30% increased risk of dying from any cause. > Actually, it might be just the people reporting it being unable to understand research - journalists are notable for failing to understand things. Especially Wall Street Journalists. If they would take a mechanistic and causal relationships approach to problems, they'd get to the guts of the matter. It's obvious that shaving isn't going to affect stroke rates. Shaving less than once a day means shaving every second day, or less [= layabout unshaven slobs]. The study was started 20 years ago, as they say, at a time when clean-shaven was the prevailing trend. They also say they excluded people with beards. The people who didn't shave regularly were in the lower socioeconomic groups. Which means they had lower IQs. Which means their dietary and other habits were less conducive to longevity. Some confounding variables the researchers should also consider [but were not reported as considering] include: Vitamin and mineral intake [measured in urine or blood], Total cholesterol level [to avoid the need to ask about dietary habits] and other lipid levels. % body fat Asprin intake Ethanol intake Stroke type [blockage or leakage] The 500 infrequent shavers were found to smoke disproportionately. People who smoke also have other health-destroying habits [which they might not be aware of], so it's not surprising that they get strokes. The researchers didn't consider the confounding variables which would affect stroke rates. Shaving is irrelevant. If lack of testosterone is such a big deal, one would wonder how come women last almost a decade longer than men. That suggests [without digging up the wide range of confounding variables] that low testosterone levels are a good indicator for longevity, not the reverse. An obvious mechanism making low testosterone a good thing for longevity is that testosterone is a brain poison which makes males crazily competitive, risk-taking, confrontational and daring - which is good for reproductive purposes in a Hobbesian world, but bad for individual longevity. Mqurice