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: Eric L who wrote (53887)	4/26/2003 11:40:42 AM
From: Eric L	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Report on Wireless Equipment Vendors (Unstrung Insider) * Pegs the 2002 Wireless Infrastructure Market at $49 billion -- down from down from $59 billion in 2001 * Pegs the 2003 Wireless Infrastructure Market at $43 billion I am almost tempted to cough up the 400 beans, that this report costs, to see why, given Qualcomm's financial health, they are not rated better than Motorola in this report. almost, but not quite ... >> Nokia Passes Medical Unstrung Justin Springham Europe, Unstrung 04.22.03 unstrung.com Nokia Corp.’s (NYSE: NOK) network division may be strangling the Finnish company's earnings at present but it is still the number yksi wireless equipment vendor in terms of financial status, according to the findings of the latest Unstrung Insider report -- "Financial Healthcheck: Top 10 Wireless Equipment Vendors." The study analyzed which vendors are managing the downturn most effectively and which are best positioned for any recovery. Data used to assess the ten firms was collected from their past eight quarterly financial reports. A total of 27 different criteria were used to rank each vendor, including market capitalization, share price performance, market share, credit ratings, and overall company revenues. Each vendor was ranked on a scale of 1 to 10 for each criterion -- 10 being the best score. The Finnish behemoth emerged as the clear winner. According to Gabriel Brown, author of the report, Nokia's lead status is due mainly to the fact that it is the only one of the ten vendors listed to have posted a profit at its wireless network equipment business over the past eight quarters. “It also has a sound financial position thanks to the ongoing success of its handset business,” he writes. Motorola Inc. (NYSE: MOT) is also showing signs of bucking the downturn, following last week’s news that it has reported a first-quarter net profit of $169 million on sales of $6.04 billion -- its ninth consecutive quarter of positive operating cash flow. The company is listed as one of the market’s most improved infrastructure players over the past year. “The growth in net income is especially positive,” says Brown. “Motorola is the clear number two in the final global rankings. The company scored highly in many key areas, and is probably the most improved business overall.” Brown also cites Alcatel SA (NYSE: ALA) as worthy of its third-place status, given the profitability at its wireless equipment business and its impressive achievement of growing revenues and expanding margins in a declining market. Market leader LM Ericsson (Nasdaq: ERICY) (by share of contracts won, at least) fails to reflect its top-of-the-class position, finishing fifth in the final rankings. The top ten classification is outlined in full below: Table 1: The Top 10 Rankings -- Winners and Losers Percentage Rank Company Score Score 1 Nokia 278.5 16.8% 2 Motorola 232 14.0% 3 Alcatel 195.5 11.8% 4 Siemens 194 11.6% 5 Ericsson 191 11.4% 6 Qualcomm 190 11.4% 7 Samsung 177.5 10.7% 8 Nortel 149.5 9.0% 9 Lucent 140.5 8.5% 10 Fujitsu 109 6.6% Source: Unstrung Insider Despite the global telecom downturn, it is clear that wireless infrastructure is still a fiercely competitive market -- one worth $49 billion in 2002, according to the report. An encouraging sign for the sector is the marked improvement seen in the fourth quarter of 2002, when revenues grew 14 percent sequentially (see diagram below). Likely causes of such growth could include revenues from the first 3G W-CDMA networks ramping up, as well the traditional "budget flushing" by carriers towards the end of each year. The outlook for the wireless equipment sector in 2003 is less positive, however. The best the industry can hope for is that the market remain flat this year, with possibly some minor improvement to the overall profitability of the sector. However, the most likely scenario, according to Brown, is another year of revenue decline on the order of 10 to 15 percent, suggesting a total market size of around $43 billion in 2003. Such estimation is in line with Nokia’s statement last week that demand for its network equipment products will fall by 15 percent or more this year. The full report is available now for $400. Gabriel Brown is a London based Research Analyst for Unstrung << - Eric -

To: Eric L who wrote (53887)	4/27/2003 10:32:33 PM
From: sag	Respond to of 54805

<His calls from May 2000 through the summer and fall were spot on, however.> Please, China Unicom would never build out a CDMA network because it would compete with their GSM business. Qualcomm could not and would not receive the same royalty rate on WCDMA as IS95. Nokia did not need to renew their 1992 license with Qualcomm because it already covered 3G. What do you think of Mark Roberts of Wachovia? Roberts once called Snyders statements factually inaccurate(read lying) Marc Cabi once wrote in a QCOM report....If you want to play CDMA look elsewhere...the stock was split adjusted $7.00. Regards

To: Eric L who wrote (53887)	4/28/2003 10:35:29 AM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 54805

Eric, thanks for sharing your thoughts on Financial Analysts and Wireless Sector. This one in particular really caught my attention: “I think that if you think back on the last 5 years you can find several examples for yourself, but you can probably start about mid-2000 with Ed Snyder, who along with Marc Cabi, is one of the analysts us Qualcommers love to hate. His calls from May 2000 through the summer and fall were spot on, however. Unfortunately, very few participants of our message boards, actually read his analysis,” <<< I have a totally different recollection of both Ed Snyder and Marc Cabi. I remember clearly Snyder stating in one of his frequent spots on CNBC that KDDI would never deploy 3G CDMA2000 in Japan even after KDDI announced their decision to do so. As an analyst covering the wireless sector it was difficult for me to believe he wasn’t outright lying when he made that statement. I believe one of the board members tagged him with “lying Ed” after hearing such. Ed also stated that CDMA2000 would never be deployed in China. I can’t recall either Ed or Marc having a buy rating on Qualcomm after Ericcson capitulated in the Spring of 1999. As I recall, if I had listened to either I would have never increased my Qualcomm position subsequent to that monumental event. jim

To: Eric L who wrote (53887)	4/28/2003 10:40:02 PM
From: Jim Mullens	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 54805

Eric, more on "analyst" research and JPMorgan (Ed Snyder and company). I Believe Marc Cabi's firm, CSFB, was also indited for the same reasons. Is there anyone else you want to recommend (gg)? Re:your statement>. "Today restraints on capital are retarding deployment of 3G3 infrastructure. Without that deployment, the deployment of 3G3 handsets in mass volume pushes out further and further and so does hard earned, well deserved, royalty flow to Qualcomm." << No doubt that is the main problem Verizon is facing in deploying Ev-Do. However, it has been my understanding that much of the WCDMA infrastructure has been deployed and problems with the WCDMA technology is the main cause retarding commercial deployment of WCDMA and "royalty flow to Qualcomm". SEC Says JP Morgan Promised Research 'Warranty' to Cos biz.yahoo.com Monday April 28, 5:26 pm ET By Michael Rapoport NEW YORK -- J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. promised a stock-research "warranty" to some companies and encouraged its analysts to help step up its trading activity on companies from which the firm planned to seek underwriting business, the Securities and Exchange Commission (News - Websites) alleged Monday. The allegations were contained in the SEC's complaint about alleged research conflicts of interest at J.P. Morgan, one of the 10 Wall Street firms which agreed Monday to a $1.4 billion settlement of allegations that companies slanted their stock ratings to help them win investment-banking business. J.P. Morgan agreed to pay $80 million as part of that settlement -- a $25 million fine, $25 million in disgorgement, $25 million to pay for independent research and $5 million for investor education. Like the other firms, J.P. Morgan was also required to make significant changes in how its research and banking operations deal with each other. The SEC alleged that J.P. Morgan provided some companies with an informal " warranty" on its coverage, pledging to investment-banking clients and prospective clients that it would provide research on them for a certain period of time, typically 18 months. Also, the SEC said, J.P. Morgan predecessor firms Hambrecht & Quist and Chase H&Q paid a total of $1.3 million to other, unidentified broker-dealers for research issued in connection with five deals in which J.P. Morgan was involved as an underwriter. The firm either didn't disclose the payments or didn't ensure that they were disclosed in offering documents, the SEC said. In addition, the SEC said the firm's analysts were encouraged to "increase their visibility" on specific stocks from which J.P. Morgan was expecting to seek banking business in the near future. The firm's research department and other departments were encouraged to increase trading volume in those stocks to assist J.P. Morgan in winning banking business, the SEC said. The SEC said some of the "pitch" materials with which J.P. Morgan tried to win banking business suggested implicitly that the firm would provide favorable research coverage of the company after the underwriting deal. For instance, when the firm pitched Participate.com in 2000, the pitch materials identified the analyst who would cover the stock, and showed cases in which other stocks covered by the analyst shot up after the analyst placed them on the firm's Focus List. The SEC's lawsuit against J.P. Morgan also contains a host of allegations mirrored in most or all of the suits against the other nine firms involved in the settlement. Among them: that compensation for analysts was tied in part to how much underwriting business they brought in, that the company's banking operations had partial supervisory responsibility for research, and that investment-banking considerations affected which companies J.P. Morgan's analysts would cover. For instance, the SEC quotes e-mails from an unnamed J.P. Morgan analyst in which the analyst said a banker for the firm "lobbied me very actively" to cover International Rectifier Corp. (NYSE:IRF - News) so J.P. Morgan could pursue its banking business. International Rectifier ultimately gave its main banking business to another firm, leading the analyst say later that the firm's head of research " wants to hear that the banking business is locked up. We've been screwed too many times." A J.P. Morgan spokesman declined to comment on the SEC's allegations. -Michael Rapoport, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5976; michael.rapoport@dowjones.com