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: JeffreyHF who wrote (80942)	10/12/2008 6:34:50 PM
From: kech	3 Recommendations Respond to of 197283

So a trader who is short QCOM claims in Barron's that QCOM will see selling? What would you expect him to say? I hope you are right Jeffrey. I have seen so many of these bear raids over the weekend with hit pieces coming out from Bear-Ones and from Street.com I just fear this might be another one. If we see Tero authoring a Street.com article tomorrow morning about how Broadcom's case has merit that would be the normal pattern. You are right though, it is almost laughable to say buy NOK and sell Q in the same piece when the story is about global demand.

To: JeffreyHF who wrote (80942)	10/13/2008 1:31:56 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	3 Recommendations Respond to of 197283

The BARRON'S article favoring NOK over QCOM is in line with earlier articles in BARRON'S going back to 1995, when they published an article that said CDMA would never work. The opinion in the latest article is based on several false assumptions; namely, that 1. Nokia retains its market share and usual margins. 2. Nokia makes as much profit margin on phones that use QCOM IP as on those that don't. 3. QCOM and NOK are affected equally by a slowing down in worldwide demand for handsets. This latter assumption is really the one that sinks the article. It is now clear that the increase in the proportion of GSM phones equipped for WCDMA increases QCOM earnings more than it does for NOK. And it is also clear that NOK competitors who use QCOM chips in handsets designed for this particular market will provide QCOM with more royalties than QCOM would get from NOK under the reduced royalty rate in the new agreement. Finally, it isn't clear that NOK, without using QCOM chips, has any advantage (other than overall market penetration) over its key competitors. Thus, I don't see any validity to the conclusions expressed in the article that, despite all these other factors, NOK still would be a better investment than QCOM. Sheeeeeez! Art