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: Jim Mullens who wrote (108309)	1/4/2012 11:23:17 AM
From: DanD	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197271

As long as we are giving two cents: Mine is, if, at this time, the board decided to replace P.J., I would sell every share of stock and options I currently own. Dan D.

To: Jim Mullens who wrote (108309)	1/4/2012 1:21:15 PM
From: BDAZZ	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197271

describing Paul as … not “…somebody completely incompetent (that) would be able to derail the company” As per previous posts it is simply a guess by any of us to decide what influence or credit Paul can or can't actually take. The idea that Paul is due no credit because Qcom is simply a worldwide, multi billion dollar corporation on auto pilot IMO is ridiculous. I wouldn't call the ex CEO of Nokia incompetent, but he chose to play it safe, sticking to his company's proven model and it was a huge mistake. In contrast Qcom gambled on the coming of the smartphone and shifted the R&D into high gear, and took this company from "promising" to the top of this market. Again, the idea that Paul had nothing to do with this brilliant move that companies like Intel envy is ridiculous. The best way to prove Paul's role would be to replace him at a time that Qcom is at the top of the game. Hey, the ex CEO from Nokia is available.

To: Jim Mullens who wrote (108309)	1/4/2012 8:07:57 PM
From: slacker711	3 Recommendations Respond to of 197271

Honestly, we have debated this so much that we know each other's opinions. The performance of the core has been good over the years but I simply dont know how much credit to give PJ for QCT/QTL and dont know if the performance of the core would have been better or worse if Jha had been hired instead. The areas where I would have given him complete credit for their success have seen dismal performances (Mirasol being the very big open question). I certainly hope that Mirasol is successful beyond even Maurice's wildest dreams and that PJ's vision and execution are proven right....we'll see. My last word on the debate. We arent learning anything new, and I dont think that banging our heads together does anybody any good. Slacker

To: Jim Mullens who wrote (108309)	1/15/2012 2:46:25 PM
From: waitwatchwander	2 Recommendations Respond to of 197271

---> for a long term owner with a substantial investment in a particular company, I would think it somewhat self defeating to one’s own net worth to constantly berate the companies CEO First off, I don't constantly berate the CEO. As I stated on numerous occasions, the issues with the company go well beyond one person. The list of folks who have led the numerous failed Qualcomm efforts is longer than both our arms. The company's culture attracts me and most likely most other investors and many of their employees but such culture comes with real risk. A key ingredient within my investment philosophy is thoroughly understanding risk. These days, few investors can afford not taking such a stance, especially with technology investments. It is the job of the CEO to ensure that risk is adequately managed for all stakeholders. Not many CEOs suceed on that front and, I'd assume, that is why most companies take on much less risk than Qualcomm. I also see a CEO of any company being important is in the maintenance of the company's credibility within their industry. On this front, I have mixed feelings. In addition to going through and possibly burning-out a long list of leading folk, Qualcomm has also accumulated a long list of partnering adventures - good, bad and ugly. Recently, BDAZZ noted nPhase as an example of partnering success. No doubt Qualcomm participated in that joint venture to help QCT develop their M2M business and that was likely the expected goal. However, from a direct ROI point of view, it is impossible for any of us to say that nPhase joint venturing was a real success. Qualcomm is very seldom clear on those detailed facts. Over the last five years, what has most troubled to me was the plethora of design adventures that have withered before or during product launch. I see such as being reflective of partner deterioration matters of which I had thought we had moved beyond. Given all the Vice President titles at Qualcomm, I have always found it peculiar that Qualcomm has never had someone solely in charge of promoting Better Partnering. I guess these activities are spread around among operational heads. Partner deterioration seemed much more prevalent in the early post Y2K period. After post 9/11 enlightenment, partnering tended towards a more narrowed focus. The company today seems to work more upon migrating operating software, creating reference designs (ie Gobi, MDMs, InGeo, embedded modules and MDPs) and tuning chipset offerings. This is in addition to R&D focused upon wireless industry standards, expansion and promotion. However, being a component supplier they still need and do a substantial amount of partnering which dictates them having superior partnering skills. Partners do come and go and the dynamics of those relationships is certainly not simple. Partnering with Nokia impacts Samsung. Partnering with Microsoft can only strain relationships with the likes of Google. It is in these areas where I'm likely to cut them a bit more slack. Partnering is a risk mitigating approach. When partnering fails risks increase. As far as self-defeating goes, I'm more inclined to see discussion as getting issues upon the table. Acknowledgement is always first step in resolution. I have no intent of bailing on this investment and, for me, the only way questionable matters can become unquestionable is if they are well know and being dealt with. Seeing challenge worked through in that manner is another key ingredient in my investment philosphy. Those who trade may well see getting the good, the bad and the ugly upon the table in a different manner.