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 : The New QUALCOMM - Coming Into Buy Range -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: golfinvestor who wrote (5880)	2/11/2010 12:13:22 AM
From: ryhack	5 Recommendations Respond to of 9129

Just out of curiosity, I went back and checked the QCOM stock price on each of the past five Annual Stockholder's Meetings. 3-2-10 ? 38? 39? 40? Maybe? 3-3-09 33.45 3-11-08 39.42 3-13-07 41.83 3-7-06 47.86 3-8-05 36.29 Just using the ASM date as an off-the-cuff yardstick, it sure has been a long haul over the past few years being a "buy and hold" investor in Qualcomm. Plus, looking at the cash horde now approaching $20 Billion...something sure seems out of balance. Maybe the 2011 ASM should be held in some European financial capitol where the off-shore portion of the cash holdings could be disbursed to those Q shareholders who attend. Now that would be a party! Seriously, I sure hope that someone very sharp at the company is investigating some strategy to make better use of the huge off-shore cash...the problem will only get bigger over time as 3G expands and 4G eventually gathers steam. Like others have stated on the boards, I fault the company management for not "talking down" the anticipated ASP slippage and resulting numbers at CES or thereafter. As it was, expectations got away from the company and we've paid a hefty price for disappointing on guidance. To pour salt in the wound, Q management has been utterly silent in the aftermath of the $10 / share downdraft...apparently no attempts to reassure analysts, "talk up" the positives (traction with Snapdragon, expectations for a better mix with high-end smartphones in the second half, Gobi, Mirasol, or whatever), or otherwise do damage control. Can't figure what management is waiting for on pulling the trigger on some stock buy-backs...I think that they've bought at prices up to $41/share in the past. Nobody seems to be at the tiller of this ship of late...hope we don't run aground!!! --Ryhack

To: golfinvestor who wrote (5880)	2/11/2010 10:21:24 AM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9129

GI--Yes, dividend taxes are a form of double taxation, right or wrong. And no, I'm not an Obama advisor because his advisors are chosen mainly for their conventional orientation. Just look at the Treasury secretary and the chief economic advisor. As I have noted many times on these threads, the way to reduce the double taxation of dividends is to reduce the corporate tax, allowing the corporations either to distribute more in dividends or to lower their product prices accordingly. A lower corporate tax is also anti-inflationary, in the sense that it discourages unprofitable investments. A corporation paying the 35% rate effectively gets a 35% discount on its investments or acquisitions. Thus, if it believes it can make 10% on an acquisition, it need only generate 6.5%, since the rest is effectively a taxpayer subsidy. A corporate tax such as ours is also anticompetitive in the sense that other countries, especially in the European Union, use a value added tax to generate taxes from the private sector. A value added tax applies only to domestic sales and is deducted from exports. We would be far more competitive if we restructured our corporate taxes accordingly. Not even the most conservative opponents to the administration dare advocate a reduction in the corporate tax. So we'll have to leave it there. Art