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: carranza2 who wrote (59014)	1/25/2007 8:28:41 AM
From: Randall Knight	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196971

That's my point as well. What event could be considered unethical? How about if you were in negotiations with a company regarding some deal involving QCOM shares? Buying back shares at the same time you are tying a deal to your share price would seem unethical.

To: carranza2 who wrote (59014)	1/25/2007 8:55:10 AM
From: Jeff Vayda	Respond to of 196971

The "Board" established the buy back in the first place. They are the sole authority in charge of the timing of the buys. Why do people think they have a say in this process? If the 'Board' selected to do something, end of story. If this was a shareholder initiated effort, then I could grant the "why havent you bought the shares" position, but it is not. This is small potatoes compared to all the other decisions you (as a shareholder) have implicitly deferred to the board wrt the future of the share price. But it is fun to talk about... Something "Big" (and that is a capital 'B' cause it is big to Kietel, and given his pay grade, it must be a Biggie.) What positive event could it be? Not Nokia, not Stockholm related.... Does anyone think the purchase of another company would get the street worked up enough to get a big enough increase to cause concern on the Boards part that the previous buy backs would not have been 'fair'. China? Sole source buy from Unicom? Major breakthrough with a European carrier? I'm at a loss at what could be so positive? Mq - how is that anti-gravity thing you have been working on

To: carranza2 who wrote (59014)	1/25/2007 10:19:52 AM
From: manalagi	Respond to of 196971

The way QCOM has been buying back shares is through selling put options which generate cash. When the stock goes down then the holders of the options can/will exercise the right to sell their shares. In that case QCOM does not know when it has to buy the shares - unless it is assigned at expiration. QCOM will buy the shares "cheap". Why aren't they doing that again? Is that approach suddenly considered as unethical? This is dog eat dog world and I don't think we have Mother Theresa in our board.

To: carranza2 who wrote (59014)	1/25/2007 10:41:49 AM
From: A.J. Mullen	Respond to of 196971

The ethical angle is a difficult one. An argument can be made that the ethical thing to do under the circumstances is to advance existing shareholders' interests by buying back the presumably undervalued shares. Except those selling are existing shareholders too - until they sell! Qcom would be exploiting their ignorance. That seems a reasonable "ethical angle" to me. Ashley

To: carranza2 who wrote (59014)	1/25/2007 10:54:34 AM
From: hedgefund	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196971

I absolutely agree and I think almost everyone is in agreement that there is no legal obligation, no fiduciary duty prohibiting Q from buying back more shares. Very interesting situation, but meanwhile, the stock is down. Litigation is a difficult path; requires lots of patience and the ability to take a punch....

To: carranza2 who wrote (59014)	1/25/2007 12:27:57 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 196971

Many years ago I was a securities lawyer. As another reply says, the problem is not the holding shareholder but the shareholder who sells. The Company and insiders have an obligation to disclose material information under Rule 10b-5. That is why there are dark periods by convention. That is why when insider sell, they often do it pursuant to a pre-arranged schedule so they cannot be accused of benefitting from inside information or failure to disclose. If there is a material event that is revealed in the midst of the program, it doesn't matter. The Company is simply avoiding any appearance of impropriety and eliminating the possibility that someone who sold stock could argue the Company knew of positive information but didn't disclose it. It's tricky sometimes when the information must be disclosed. With mergers and acquisitions, from the time there is a decision that the Company would like to buy, entering of negotiations, completion of negotiations and the terms of the deal, there is a lot of time and there can be dispute as to when the deal should have been disclosed. That is why extreme caution dictates leaning over backwards not to buy. I think criticism is unwarranted and Qcom should be congratulated for its approach. The sale of puts method is interesting, because it has a time component in which information may be disclosed and there is still a component of voluntariness by the buyer of the put. In some ways that reduces the risk of disclosure problems, I would think.

To: carranza2 who wrote (59014)	1/25/2007 12:43:12 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 196971

buying back shares at a time when the company knows of a favorable material event is not illegal Not being lawyer, but, because of my investment advisor status, I have some knowledge of the SEC regulations and believe that under certain circumstances, a buyback made before the availability of significant corporate events COULD BE ILLEGAL. The broad rule is to make no purchases or sales before important events have been made public. However, it's also true that the QCOM board has voted and voted again to buy back shares when they believe the shares are undervalued. This stated, publicly announced policy gives them a legal right to buy back shares whenever they choose. QCOM has been very careful to make sure that investors are well aware of this ONGOING policy. The enticing comment that the company does not want to buy back shares before an important event, or words to that effect, does indeed make one wonder what event is about to be announced. If it is a really big event, then I would say it must involve the issues surrounding the Nokia-QUALCOMM licensing/royalty agreements. Just my hunch. I still would not expect any announcement for another month or more. Art