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: san yao who wrote (128605)	5/5/2003 10:13:51 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Respond to of 152472

One can deduce why Jacobs is selling: The cost basis is low, indicating that the shares, probably obtained through options, were held long enough to qualify as a long term capital gain. A long term capital gain is taxed at less than half the rate Jacobs would pay for ordinary income from salary. Therefore, one can conclude that regular sales of stock by Jacobs and other officers at QCOM are associated with the compensation strategy that allows for a portion of the compensation to be taxed at the preferential rate for capital gains. Sales do not necessarily indicate future prospects for the stock. Art

To: san yao who wrote (128605)	5/5/2003 10:17:54 AM
From: waitwatchwander	Respond to of 152472

>>>> Jacobs selling? Perhaps, it was just some form of financial planning to ensure that the company got a good premium on the puts they wrote last quarter. Is that how it works? Edit: Doesn't Art's explanation seem much more plausible?

To: san yao who wrote (128605)	5/5/2003 10:18:06 AM
From: qveauriche	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

I know the old saw about insiders selling for many reasons but buying only for one. But the almost uninterrupted selling by insiders for a long time now has to be of growing concern to us. I think that its true, isn't it, that insiders hold a significantly smaller percentage of the outstanding common than is the case for the average US publicly traded company, and yet they continue to unload shares. We didn't even have any buyers in the low 20s, did we? I'm always happy, and usually enlightened when I hear from John Shannon and Mucho/Darfot, but I think I know exactly what your explanations can be. What I'd like to know is if anyone out there has an argument to make that the selling is not a concern. Thanks.

To: san yao who wrote (128605)	5/5/2003 10:44:09 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Why are Jacobs keep selling? Why sure. Do you recall an earnings conference call a few months back? Dr. J said he'd be selling for estate-planning purposes. The answer to that question is a simple one. I haven't followed the Jacobs boys selling. Their stock ownership is surely high and they don't need much more than they've already got. Under American estate tax rules, long term capital gains taxes on inherited shares are based on the value of the stock at the time of the testator's death. In this case, the Jacobs boys will probably receive a nice slug of shares which, for estate tax purposes, they can value at the time of their father's death --or mother's death, if they inherit from her. Since Dr. J.'s shares have appreciated significantly over the years, receiving his shares valued at the time of death is a serious tax benefit to them. If the Jacobs boys have sold shares, they will probably get them back when Dr. J. or his wife dies, and those shares will have a nice tax benefit attached to them.

To: san yao who wrote (128605)	5/5/2003 5:35:10 PM
From: queuecom	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

San Yao: Your message re: insider sales generated quite a few responses. It's obvious from most of the responses that more analysis is required of the list of sellers to better understand the motivation for these sales and the possible beneficial use we lowly outside investors can glean from this information. First, I believe that the company reason cited for the sales by Dr. J was for estate planning reasons. This is BUNK!! Also, the many responses on this board were way off the mark demonstrating a clear lack of knowledge of estate taxes and estate planning. Every one seems to be focused on capital gains taxes. Forget them. The IRS bites the apple upon death on the value of your estate and that bite is about 50 -55%. And don't forget the State of CA. They probably hit the gross estate for 5 -10%. By not selling shares now you defer ALL taxes until death. But, by selling now you pay the IRS 20% of the capital gain (probably 100% of the gross sale price if Dr. J got these shares for pennies). Now upon death the 80% you now have in cash is taxed at the aforementioned onerous estate tax rates. So, selling NOW for estate tax reduction purposes makes no sense. As I said the reason cited is BUNK!! Julie Cunningham should be ashamed. But the amount of the sale in relation to Dr. J's total holdings was trivial so the reason hardly matters. A true tempest in the teapot. I would be more concerned if the sons sold. I would also have to evaluate the other sales that occurred (Thornley and the Board members). That may be more revealing. In any case , whatever the reason for Dr. J's sale, I think it was ill timed and used poor judgement. I'd suggest you keep close tabs on his future actions and not on his words. They truly do speak loudly.