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: limtex who wrote (128806)	5/8/2003 2:50:50 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

limtex, the issue is that the price anticipates more products actually out there selling than are actually out there selling. The business is doing very well. The price is ahead of the business. And even though the business is growing, it is not growing as fast as the price anticipates. The emergence of competitors into the space simultaneously validates the expectations that the market has of the value of the space, but then diminishes the value of that space to Qualcomm shareholders by the amount that the competitors are expected to attract. So it is a two edged sword. I do not believe that the downward drift in Qualcomm is due to any sort of concerted attack on the price. Actually, I believe that the run up from $23 to $40 was due to a concerted lofting of the price - if not intentional then at least consequential to some very optimistic views on worldwide wireless. My comments on this thread for the last few years have been somewhat consistent: not that the market isn't there, but that the value to Qualcomm shareholders is being over-estimated. We don't call it the bleeding edge for nothing. Early innovators do not always capture the value. For technologies that take longer than patent lifespans to reach full adoption (like CDMA, it appears), it is often the followers who achieve far greater economic returns because they have an easier time following the footsteps of the trail-blazers. Look at RCA. For example. As for TI selling CDMA chips and "why give them a license in the first place?" Because TI had something that QCOM needed. And TI's bargaining strength was obviously enough to extract a royalty-free license. Patent poker is like that. Just because I hold a patent doesn't mean it will ever be worth something. Royalties depend on the relative bargaining strength of the patent portfolios with respect to each other, not on the number of patents or even the breadth of coverage. What this means is that Qualcomm's most profitable (by dollars, not by margin) division is going to face competition. This is not good news, no matter which way you spin it. John

To: limtex who wrote (128806)	5/8/2003 5:42:59 PM
From: Whatnot	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Limtex, I think that you are looking for love in all the wrong places. I often enjoy reading your posts but your constant spiking from joy to outright dismay suggest that investing in stocks in not really worth stress it causes you. I don't think that QCOM responding to every vagary of the market makes much business sense. In any company I invest in I want management to dedicate their time to running and growing the business, not getting caught up in some press release game. All the best