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 Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: arun gera who wrote (8136)	2/7/1998 6:22:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

>>I just checked - $3.2 billion translates to about $47 stock price. QCOM is somewhat of a value stock below that price. This is without any speculation.<< my response is about investing in general, not about qcom in particular. w/o speculation? come on. you are justifying your position. every stock position has significant shorter to medium term speculation. high tech companies definitely have longer term speculation. live by innovation/die by innovation. saying that any high tech company does not involve speculation is just not congruent to reality. using prior sales values for comparable industries just isn't a guarantee that you can even get half that. and tha would assume an exact apples to apples comparison. thats like saying ascend once sold for $80 a share so buying at $30 and selling at $80 involves no speculation. again, i'm not arguing qcom's current valuation or risk reward equation at all. just the comment about no speculation. investing always involves some sort of speculation. the speculation greatly increases in the tech industries. jmho - and experience. btw, the same holds in reverse. just b/c somebody paid a certain amount for a business months ago doesn't mean somebody won't pay double now.

To: arun gera who wrote (8136)	2/8/1998 1:21:00 AM
From: DTA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

No debate there with valuations--except to say that despite its varied quantifiable successes, the Q still lacks a defining iconography that would mitigate the momentum behind an 8 point drop because one or two products in one market weren't doing as well as expected in one quarter. An acronym (CDMA) in faraway Korea clearly isn't going to do it, and because the Q is associated with many disparate-seeming enterprises--satellite coms via Globalstar, trucking coms via Omnitracs, CDMA chipsets, handsets,and infrastructure, WLL across the developing world, Eudora--it is easy to conclude from one report (sky is falling in South Korea, let's go to the videotape) that the sky is falling all across Q land. I have no substantial complaint with the existing or potential businesses of the Q. Exactly the opposite--that's why I plunked down the skins. My concerns surround a volatility driven in part by the lack of a unified, easily consumable corporate vision and presentation. It's not a cell phone I want, it's a pageant. Duane