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 Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: slacker711 who wrote (49142)	12/9/2005 3:23:43 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 196568

Ironically enough, GAAP was higher than pro forma last year, at $1.26 versus $1.16, while GAAP for next is guided at $1.19 to $1.23. Unless we get significant earnings surprises, we are unlikely to do better in '06 than we did in '05 on a GAAP basis, a basis which incidentally IMO will be the gold standard as we go forward. I think measuring performance per GAAP and expensing options is the appropriate way to go, since in my estimation putting QSI in its own category has no logic, and calling an expense something else is, well, silly. After all, QSI is undoubtedly part of the company, contributing its own profits and losses just any other business segment. The options expense is just that, an expense. I suppose we are in a transition period, which is the only way to justify things. Nonetheless, it is surprising to me that 18 cents per share of options expense is incurred. Seems like a whole lot of cash. I hope the market sees through all this as you hope, but I fear that it will not. This is not an inconsequential risk of holding Q next year. It may very well result in Q being dead money next year. It is bad for employee morale, too, since none of these hard working folks want to hold a stock that may be dead money. As I said, I hope you're right.