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: Maurice Winn who wrote (127122)	2/22/2003 8:44:03 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I can't think of a single claim made by QUALCOMM which has been incorrect. What did they claim would be the consequences from their various strategic initiatives? Companies make "incorrect" claims and projections all the time. That's why we as investors are cautioned under "Safe Harbor" provisions that management has no more foreknowledge than we do. Whenever management makes forward looking statements they are pretty much guaranteed to be "incorrect". We get to find out later by what degree and in which direction. So you getting bent out of shape defending St. Jacobs The Perfect is somewhat over the top. As is the whole business of punishing any company that issued defensible forecasts which turned out later to be overly optimistic. Of course, various management teams have more or less fortune on their side when it comes to delivering results. And various companies are more or less scrupulous than others when it comes to "packaging" the truth. Extremes exist in either direction and should be dealt with accordingly. Without losing sight of the onus of responsibility: buyer beware. But in the middle, within a zone of tolerance, balance is good. John

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (127122)	2/22/2003 9:17:07 PM
From: straight life	Respond to of 152472

Veteran Broker Tells All... dailyspeculations.com by way of: dailyspeculations.com ...Here are the unedited thoughts of Tim Melvin, a respected Baltimore stockbroker with decades of experience. Read—and beware! – The Daily Speculator ‘No commission’ or ‘no direct commission to you’ is one of the oldest and most effective lines in the brokerage business. Retail investors are suckers for commission-free deals. This technique shows up in the peddling of Nasdaq stocks and secondary preferred stocks, one of the more frequent showings in today’s markets. All too often, these preferred stocks are bought at the offer and then marked up as a principal trade—perfectly legal, but less than open. The investor is paying the bid/ask spread plus a bump that doesn’t show on the confirmation. He feels he got a cost-free deal; in reality he paid a big of 5% to 6%.” “Nasdaq offerings, particularly smaller less liquid names, are also an area of huge abuse. A firm can take down a block at the bid on these things and put it back out at the offer—a spread often as high as 10%--without showing a commission. The 5% rule, remember applies only to the amount above the offer. One of the first firms I ever worked for, nameless for obvious reasons, used to post every day at 4:15 something called the overnight list. Literally a list of names the over-the-counter was stuck with that could be peddled with “No cost to you , doctor.” The same guy who would argue all day about agency trading costs would blindly pay a spiff of 5% or more to win these special deals. Needless to say we got paid extra for moving the trash. The invention of B class shares of mutual funds was done specifically to allow brokers to compete with no loads by offering shares with no up-front costs. The 5% to 7% redemption fees and excessive 12(b)1 charges rarely make it into the conversation. Same with closed-end funds, sold as commission-free IPOs that include underwriting costs up to 7%. Registered secondary offerings of listed stocks also carry fees that generally reduce the price the next day. The costs may be paid by the issuer, but it is out of the investor’s proceeds. I haven't tested it in years, but shorting into a secondary and the covering with shares purchased in the offering used to be the closest thing to a free lunch on the street. There is always a cost. The things that are peddled as “no cost” or “no direct cost” usually carry the highest commissions to the broker. Someone is paying that fee. As most firms are far from benevolent institutions, it is usually the client paying. Fees subtract from performance. But it is still one of the most effective sales (con) techniques used by the Street. * * * Interesting Big Con Unfolding Now Interesting big con unfolding now with elements of duplicity, the gaining of confidence, bait and switch and third world obscurity. Company A lends foreign company B money so company B can then buy products back from company A which B sells in its foreign market. Company B puts up its stock as collateral on the loan. Company A gets boost in its share price because it has booked a large sale to B ( not disclosing to investors that it actually financed the sales itself) So company A is already on somewhat shakey ground, and is further blinded by huge potential profits from inside gov contracts company B is able to broker. Stage is set for company B to shift the loaned funds and revenues from any sales to private accounts. Company B goes nearly bankrupt, but owners have moved loaned cash from A to private accounts. Country B has an antiquated, possibly corrupt legal system to protect them. Plus as added protection much of the industry collapses, justifying their bankruptcy against any legal challenges. Nice scam. Duncan Coker A is Motorola and Nokia B is The Uzan family of Turkey Loan is $1.5 billion

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (127122)	2/23/2003 11:45:54 AM
From: pcstel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

But that's not QUALCOMM. They specifically did not give any claims of being 'on plan' with Globalstar. I reported that Irwin Jacobs was not going along with Bernie's enthusiastic urging to start producing millions of handsets at the announcement of service at Telecom99 in Geneva. However, I will make one point! Contained in the original 100 Million Dollar Vendor Financing agreement with Globalstar was the repayment schedule! This schedule required the first re-payment on the VF note to be on or about January 15th, 2000. Several days later Globalstar announced a "Secondary" during the Gilder hype job! And Globalstar unloaded ~8 million shares on to the public.. Contained within the context of the 8-K for the secondary were vauge references to the "New Qualcomm Agreement", but there was no mention that Globalstar failed to make debt repayments to Qualcomm. At the shareholder meeting in Feb 2000 (if memory serves me). I questioned Jacobs and Thornley regarding the repayment of this ~13 million dollars. After about 20 seconds of Jacobs and Thornley talking back and forth with their mouths covered. Thronley announced that the payments had not been paid, and that Qualcomm was in the process of renegotiating that missed payment into a larger 500 million dollar Vendor Finance Agreement. An agreement which was not finalized until May of 2000. I then questioned Thornely about the size of the Vendor Financing Agreement given the fact that Globalstar missed their January debt repayment. (Which BTW would have created an immediate acceleration demand on their Bonds, the Chase Facility, and the BofA facility.) Thornley noted that "early indications" showed that Globalstar's business was proceeding on plan and therefore justified Qualcomm 400% increase in Vendor Financing to Globalstar. While the truth was, Globalstar had in affect defaulted on it's repayment obligation to Qualcomm, which was not noted by a SEC filing by either company. In which Globalstar then proceeded with a "Secondary Offering" days later whose SEC filings failed to mention that Globalstar missed it's debt repayment to Qualcomm. Exactly one year later, when Globalstar again failed to make the January 15, 2001 repayment obligation to Qualcomm. The appropriate SEC filings were made! sec.gov So the question that has to be asked. Why did Qualcomm and Globalstar not release the data that the loan repayment was missed on January 15, 2000, and that the missed payment was being renegotiated days before Globalstar announced a Secondary Offering? PCSTEL