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: Raglanroadie who wrote (78276)	7/3/2008 7:16:40 AM
From: quartersawyer	Respond to of 197011

Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that Q is making long term decisions and is more concerned with execution than whether the "market" happens to get it in the near term. Pleasing the street is like trying to please a self absorbed women. The whole exercise is pointless and does nothing but waste time and resources...I propose that Q have an informal mascot in the form of a grindstone. Hard choice, a self-absorbed woman or a grindstone. Right now this company is buzzing along on decisions made and executions set in motion long ago, and will do that for a limited future. The street didn't get it then either, and the current long-term decisions are fascinating... but a long-term holder's perspective involves the fact that they are now being made and developed with the shareholders' big resources generated by prior decisions, and there is the question of whether they seem as brilliant and likely to produce as what we were looking at over a decade ago, given the track record of efforts outside the original cores and their direct developments. "4+ years to profitability" is helpful, if you remember that slide, but is it all seat of the pants/up in the air, and that's actually all they can tell us about the value of the developing businesses? How much of a waste of time and resources is it to do models and *inform* shareholders and the street, even of a range, as slacker suggests? Just some numbers, is all. They probably already have them. Not too much to ask, and let shareholder Mullens and other analysts would go to town with them.

To: Raglanroadie who wrote (78276)	7/3/2008 7:41:10 AM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197011

While individual shareholders may call for valuation on these pursuits I don't seem to recall Q having ever done so. Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that Q is making long term decisions and is more concerned with execution than whether the "market" happens to get it in the near term. You are absolutely right that Q doesnt talk about gaining a valuation for these businesses...and I am happy to say that Q does manage their business for the long-term. Personally, I dont see the latter as being mutually exclusive as to giving out some wide ranging metrics over their new businesses, but obviously Q doesnt agree with me. They are likely to just keep sending out Lauer to conference after conference, but failing to provide the numbers that the investors sitting in the audience could actually use. Slacker