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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (53839)	4/8/2003 10:23:02 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Respond to of 54805

Well, there's some noise for you. Maybe you'll find some signals in it. ... You mean like this? John, after I wrote that signal:noise stuff, I got to thinking [lying awake in the night on and off]. There's a paradoxical problem going on. Buying the shares of QCOM means that one thinks QUALCOMM management can get a good return on the money. Better than any other opportunity. Now that QUALCOMM is in the business of buying their own shares with the profits from their businesses, the situation changes. Not only that, they sold shares on becoming S&P500 listed. So now, they are buying and selling their own shares. They will sell when the shares over too expensive for what they think they can achieve and will buy shares when they think that they can do better than the sellers believe. They also are insiders, knowing details such as exactly what the royalties are, contracts say, and a lot more besides. Nobody can know more than the insiders do on what the company can achieve. So, anybody selling to QUALCOMM is betting that they know better than QUALCOMM management what the company can do. Anyone buying from QUALCOMM is paying too much [in the insiders' opinions]. If QCOM sells more shares, it means they are overpriced. They will need to sell more shares if they are going to run my Q cyberspace monetary system and even if they don't it'll be tempting to sell shares on an opportunistic basis if they see the share price above what they think it should be. QUALCOMM is full of people who know about signal:noise ratios. They are in the best position to price the company. Better even than Uncle Al, KBE, is in a position to price the US$ - economists aren't as mathematically talented as engineers who defined reality in mathematics. Economists always do a bunch of arm-waving and use adjectives. Economists do also make up some economic maths and graphs and stuff to make their US$ signal:noise reductions look scientific and mathematical.... See how easy it is to spot what we're looking for in the sea of data available? LOL As far as betting with Qualcomm insiders, here's how they are betting: sec.gov You know, in some places it's a crime to use other people's money held in trust by yourself to buy stuff from yourself. Which has the same ethical topology as being at the helm of a company that's buying up the shares that you're selling from your own account. The noise you flung through cyberspace might be interpreted as sending a different signal. Dunno. Hard to say. After all, I'm just a country boy. Not nearly as clever as an RF engineer. So when I see experts tellin' me that stuff is worth less than what they are fixin' to sell it to me for... well, I've just got to ponder that for a while. John

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (53839)	4/9/2003 12:46:07 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Anyway, back to the paradox. If one buys QCOM, one is over-valuing the company because QUALCOMM doesn't think they can meet the buyer's expectations, or they would be doing the buying. If one sells QCOM, and QUALCOMM management is on the other end of the trade, one is undervaluing the company. Ah, one of your rare illogical statements, Mq. It presumes that Q management is all-knowing and all-prescient, and that it will always execute flawless trades. Unfortunately, Q management has no more a grip on market trends than you or I, and market trends will always affect the ultimate profitability of a trade.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (53839)	4/17/2003 7:23:11 PM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

<< Anyway, back to the paradox. If one buys QCOM, one is over-valuing the company because QUALCOMM doesn't think they can meet the buyer's expectations, or they would be doing the buying. If one sells QCOM, and QUALCOMM management is on the other end of the trade, one is undervaluing the company. >> Maurice, the problem with your noisy analysis is this: with millions of shares being traded daily, the chances are extremely high that you are not trading stock with Qualcomm management. Rather, if the trade is for a few hundreds of shares, with another retail investor. If for a few thousands or tens of thousands, with a fund manager. Now, the operative question becomes this: are you more or less knowledgeable about the true value of the shares you are trading than the person on the other side of your trade? Or perhaps to phrase it differently, about the stock price trend within the time frame of your interest and focus? The answer to that question seems to me to be more important than whether or not Qualcomm management or insiders believe the current price represents over or under valuation.