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: qveauriche who wrote (128608)	5/5/2003 10:41:09 AM
From: Eric L	Respond to of 152472

Financial Planning qveauriche, << What I'd like to know is if anyone out there has an argument to make that the selling is not a concern. >> As a Qualcomm shareholder, I have absolutely no concerns whatsoever, about Dr. Irwin Mark Jacobs selling any or many shares. As one of the founders, and given his contributions, he has earned it, and he is after all turning 70 in October. Having said that, I can not make the same argument, as it regards other key members of senior management selling concurrently in large quantity. - Eric -

To: qveauriche who wrote (128608)	5/5/2003 10:51:15 AM
From: Stock Farmer	Respond to of 152472

When is selling by insiders not a concern? When their percentage of the company remains stable or rising - e.g. to keep a balanced portfolio. If IJ is unloading shares at approximately the same rate he is accumulating options, then it is reasonable to assume he is just extracting the cash equivalent of the equity compensation he is earning. Of course, one can always question the amount of compensation but that is another topic altogether and not a matter of confidence/lack thereof in the company. Another valid reason might be when the rate at which insiders are liquidating their holdings is less than the rate at which their actions are increasing the wealth of the corporation. If in the end I take away more than I could get elsewhere, I should still be happy, no matter how much insiders take away. Apparently however, different people measure wealth increase according to different yardsticks, some more substantial than others. This leads to considerable disagreement whether or not the amount of wealth insiders are taking away is justified or not. John

To: qveauriche who wrote (128608)	5/5/2003 12:54:23 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

hi qveau, as i am sure you looked at the figures i presented, which anyone can check for themselves, i think it is a bit curious that the longs present only excuses for the selling but never consider what i would call the Occam's Razor explanation here (that they're selling because they think the stock is a sale). granted, some insiders have huge amounts of stock and options, so there is a logic to diversifying for them, but why did they not employ this logic at much higher prices (when it would have been even more compelling)? if insiders had sold just for diversification purposes, then one would expect a lot of selling at high prices, followed by progressively less selling at lower prices. but among all the six-month blocks since the beginning of 2000, the six months from November 2002 have been among the lowest-priced six months out there, and yet these six months from November 2002 have seen the largest dollar amounts of sales since January 2000, if i recall correctly. also, i find it a bit curious that nobody has expressed concern that the insiders are selling in such quantity even as they are using the company's cash to buy in stock for the first time. all i have seen so far are not-too-convincing explanations. one other thing i do find puzzling is this: while insider sales have been imo quite high since last November, there did not seem to be a lot of insider sales in the couple years before that. granted, for a good part of last year the stock was mired in the 20s so it is not surprising to see the selling pick up in the 30s. however, it seems insiders could have unloaded a lot more stock at much higher prices in 2000, 2001, and early 2002, but didn't. aside from ridiculous explanations that insiders are "generous" and want to sell the stock at low prices to benefit public buyers, i'm having a hard time understanding why they waited so long to begin selling the stock in soize. surely there were other legally allowable selling windows which they could have taken advantage of at much higher prices. maybe they, like a lot of the public, kept thinking the stock would quickly go back to 150 or something, so they held on until the stock really started to tank. under this scenario, the insiders were not so different from the rest of us in expecting the stock to go back "to da moon". when that didn't happen, they gradually resigned themselves to the new reality of more modest valuation, and thus recently began selling in what was seen as an attractive price window, for all the various diversification reasons one can think of. this may be the most compelling explanation, in fact. it's not really a doomsday scenario as i see it (in the doomsday scenario i don't see why they'd buy in stock with company money). the insiders are just now adjusting to the new reality, and doing the portfolio housekeeping work they (like the rest of us) regret not having done on the last day of trading in 1999.