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: Mr. Sunshine who wrote (129537)	6/4/2003 7:43:05 PM
From: kech	Respond to of 152472

deleted

To: Mr. Sunshine who wrote (129537)	6/5/2003 1:25:46 PM
From: bdog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Good post Steve. It is useful to have some at least theories as to these folk's real agendas just to keep the 'noise' in perspective. The interesting ones are those who obviously have triple digit IQ's yet put out so much energy in what seems to be a pointless, wheel spinning exercise in service of little or no apparent self-interest (unlikely). Respecting #1, I can't see how these people could justify the energy they expend by the little they could make shorting the stock. Besides how much influence do they really have? I personally wonder how many of them operate on SI with several aliases and identities thereby disguising their rather more complicated investment strategies (and attempted manipulations) in the tel sector. This would at least help to account for the inordinate time and energy expenditure and the discipline. Likewise #2 makes some sense. Pretty sad comment on the company that has to resort to that kind of dirty under the table dealing. What do we think there chances are in the long run? This would help to explain how thick skinned and evasive their shills are in the face of confrontations respecting their agenda. #3 seems unlikely. A person driven by those feelings would sooner or later reveal them. The people we are talking about are, if nothing else, very adept at staying on message. Your 4th (legitimate investors) category takes me back to the multiple identity, stock manipulation scenerio in which they do take long and/or short positions but keep their posts respecting different stocks separated via different aliases. That seems to me the only way to classify these folks as rational. Notwithstanding and even if they are operating such a manipulative scamario, I think you are right that they also just do not have much of a life. Good luck to them. Watch them disappear after the next bg run. Cheers, dog

To: Mr. Sunshine who wrote (129537)	6/5/2003 6:05:08 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 152472

Steve (and bdog and gh and others), aw geez... another series of "guess the motives" posts? Get a life ;) Speaking of which, when it comes to people who lack a life, what about folks who post banal platitudes back and forth about digital photography? Or make lame jokes about who has or doesn't have a goat. Or quest for grubs amongst scores of threads. Or write a long winding spew of insinuating drivel about the motives of people they've never met, never asked and which can't be verified within the SI TOU anyway? And you talk about getting a life? LOL We're all wasting time to some extent. Some of us waste it on topics related to investing in Qualcomm. That would be proximally the purpose of this thread. Does it matter what motivates someone to have an opinion on a tech stock? Versus, for example, what the opinion is and whether it is built from defensible precepts? Or whether prior opinions have been judged meritorious (or not) by the passage of time? And isn't having no position in QCOM consistent with an opinion that having a position in QCOM is unwise? If you expect negative opinions, stands to reason you should expect those who hold 'em to be out of the stock too. Or do you want this to be the "only people who think Qualcomm is a great investment can post here" thread? And if people offer their opinions which are subsequently challenged, varying people respond with varying degrees of effort and depth. Do you want the rest of the thread to look like this from here on in: Buy QCOM <EOM> Yes, buy QCOM <EOM> No, sell QCOM <EOM> No, Buy QCOM <EOM> Now that would be plenty easy to read, wouldn't it? But pointless. You'd be better off reading the tape. And if all we want are positively biased press releases about how Qualcomm is killing the competition, go read the moderated thread. And if all you want is to lark around while you wait for Qualcomm to establish its next trading range (wherever that is), there's the "write what you like" thread. You say you are here for "really one reason - TO MAKE MONEY". Then by what criteria should you judge the posts of others? Motive? The market doesn't give a $hit about motive. Doesn't results have more bearing on your making money? And if folks like me are indeed so malicious, well some of us have done such a dogs breakfast of harming folks who might have adopted our same positions that we should be slinking away into the shadows to weep in shame and humiliation!! Imagine setting out with malicious intent to make your victims better off to believe in you? So if I'm being malicious, seems like the joke's on me. Ha ha ha. What a goofball eh? Trying to harm folks by counseling an action that turns out would've left 'em with more MONEY when that's the whole purpose in the first place? With enemies like that, who needs friends? Me, I'm not claiming some right to be correct going forwards based on having been right in the past. Just noting that my opinion has so far withstood the test of time. Both on the long side up to 2000, and on the not-long side thereafter. All question of motive aside, I can claim the high road for having stuck with an unpopular opinion while it was not so obviously correct. And while the future may be different, there is also a non-zero possibility that the future holds more of the same. A good set of fundamental theory suggests so. Shoot the messenger if you wish. It's a popular sport on this board. If you are presuming some unknown intent in the present, you might also wonder what intent would have led me to suggest bailing out of QCOM at much higher prices many years in the past. And explain my unpopular opinion then despite a protest of objections. And field accusations of evil intent at that time too. Turning to the subject of motive, since this is the "coming into buy range" thread, one would think the motive of any one posting to this threads would be to express opinions related to a "buy range" on QCOM. Might even be that simple. How about an on-topic post about QCOM or the price of QCOM, or a projection of where it's going? Personally I think it's going up in the short term and next to nowhere in the long term. So since I'm not a trader and since the market rallies so fiercely and since QCOM is so volatile that I hesitate to play the short side... I'm not long and I'm not short. I'm out, and my money's very long and elsewhere. You may disagree with this position, but it's not possible to accuse me of having the investment instincts of a lemming. That honor belongs elsewhere. My motives, well if you'd bothered to ask I'd answer. But they are not difficult to comprehend. What I post is my opinion. And it might be wrong. But I'll defend it. Why? Because I believe opinions are either worth holding or changing. There's no middle ground. Having half an opinion is foolish. And holding a full opinion today just because it was the opinion I held yesterday despite changes to the underlying basis... well that is even worse. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain from exploring why my opinion differs from that of others. And unlike others on this thread I take the time and energy to explain my position in detail so that they can pick it apart and I can put the pieces back together again. And learn a lot in the process. Can you think of a better reason? Mine is neither an accidental nor unreasoned position. It is neither whimsical nor capricious. Nor is it merely incidental to my total portfolio or outside the scope of my experience or interests. It is the calculated output of a set of assumptions and the logic of the mathematics bears no malice. And much of it has proven itself to have been well founded. Both on the long side, then while standing aside. I post in reply to challenges of my opinion. I spend a lot of time doing this because it seems that there is no shortage of people who think opposite to me. Which is grist for the mill. If I'd have knuckled under to popular opinion, my portfolio would have been clipped in half and in half again and in half again. So pardon my tenacity, but it has served me well in the past. So well that I am paid enough just by dividends and income from my portfolio so that I can post to SI whenever I feel like it from wherever I want to be in the world. Unlike some folk who have to hold down a day job, time is not so precious to me. Leisure is a great basis for life, once you can afford it. And this is the truth. A mind that cannot grasp the truth as being amongst possible explanations hardly qualifies as "open". And one that would grasp the truth but not offer it up besides less charitable alternatives hardly qualifies as honest. But such a mind wouldn't be alone on this thread either. John Substantial non position By informed choice Maybe quite unwise But then, maybe not Taking my chances