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: Gregg Powers who wrote (8171)	2/8/1998 3:33:00 AM
From: Asterisk	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

If I could I would like to add to your analysis with a couple of points. But first I would like to make a correction, the QCP-2700 will not go to digital at 800MHZ, only analog. Everyone here seems to think that QCOM sets the price on it's phones in the stores. I am sorry to say that they don't. As I am sure we all know, Sprint or whatever company buys the phones wholesale from QCOM, sets the retail price. Knowing that we have ABSOLUTELY no idea what QCOM is charging for their phones. We can speculate, but that is exactly what it is, speculation. For all we know QCOM could be charging Sprint $10 for each Q and Sprint has a horrendous markup (I realize that is an exaggeration, I'm making a point). Conversely QCOM may be charging Sprint $1000 per phone and Sprint is giving it's consumer a good deal. The problem with price speculation is that we just don't know. Thank you for bringing the build out issue to the forefront, that is something that many people never thought about I am sure. Also thank you for bringing the issue that the CC said the ASIC sales would be flat instead of flat on their face like some have speculated. It is always nice to hear from someone with the inside poop. One thing that I would like people to think about is the following ethical and business exercise: In the earnings release and in the conference call the leaders of QCOM were doing some heavy hinting (as told by earlier posts) about doubts about the short term Korea situation. They said that long term Korea was keen but said nothing about the short term. Is it possible that they were trying to tell people that they suspected the Korean order would fall through? I think that is possible. Would it have been better for everyone if they came out and said so? No. I think that they would have been doing just as much a disservice in putting out half baked, unsubstantiated rumor. They waited until they knew for sure, then they told everyone at the same time the facts that they had in hand. Putting it another way, if they would have said that the Hansol order and the ASIC sales were going in the toilet and ti didn't happen, people would be just as pissed. It is better to measure twice and cut once, right?

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (8171)	2/8/1998 9:33:00 AM
From: Ron M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg: Welcome to the thread and thanks for your analysis and insight. Another reason for the sluggish Q sales (non price related) in the Milw-Chi area is that Sprint has the Q but no coverage in Chicago while Primeco has coverage in both markets but no Q availability; at least as of three weeks ago. In fact my wife returned a Q to Sprint after Christmas because of the limited coverage. Perhaps now some of those Qs intended for Korea will be shipped to Primeco. The delays in signing analog roaming agreements has also slowed the sales of the QCP 2700 as, at least here, only the digital is useable via Sprint and therefore no coverage in the more remote areas. All are relatively small issues soon to be corrected.

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (8171)	2/8/1998 10:14:00 AM
From: JMD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg, I take it from your comments that you are a member of the institutional investment community. Your comments on QCOM are clearly based on a fundamental knowledge of the company and are certainly welcome. I hope that you will continue to post here from time to time, although I suspect that your position may preclude you from doing so in some areas. Let me wing a few topics at you--feel free to pick and choose. (1) if you follow discussion forums on SI, Motley Fool, or damn near anywhere, you will doubtless have concluded that the security analyst is a fairly universally despised animal. Conspiracy theories abound, particularly those built around theories of stock manipulation, fleecing the "little guy" and so on. These feelings are widespread and intensely held. Does the institutional community care about this hostility? Note that I am not asking you to comment on the validity of the prejudice, but specifically that if perception is reality, then does the Institutional Investment community regard this as a spreading cancer requiring attention, or as par for the course, no big deal? (2) I have posted here in the last few days that I feel that the Q has been or will be abandoned by a significant number of analysts because they feel they were sandbagged. I am sure you are familiar with the B.T. Alex Brown quote ". . . .their (QCOM) credibility has been ruined". I am of the view that management is of the highest integrity, released ASAP, AND HAD TO RELEASE BECAUSE OF THE SHAREHOLDER MEETING TUESDAY EVEN IF IT WAS ONLY TWO WEEKS FROM THE EARNINGS CALL. But like Question 1, my opinion is irrelevant on a variety of fronts. If the perception of the analysts is that QCOM management deliberately mislead, how long do you think will be required to restore credibility? How bad is the damage? (3) Your comments on the "expensive" Q phone were most interesting. I have been leading the parade for handsets priced somewhere between cheap razor blades and a cheap six pack, desiring ubiquitous adoption of CDMA as the primary goal. I figured if LU thought the handset business was so attractive that they practically gave it to Phillips, why in the world do I want my QCOM in the field, except insofar as a means to an end? The Motley Board immediately produced several fanatically appreciative Q phone customers questioning my intelligence and or sanity/loyalty--long story short, are you comfortable with a QCOM model deriving significant earnings from handsets? Appreciate your thoughts and again, welcome to the QCOM thread. Mike Doyle

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (8171)	2/8/1998 8:27:00 PM
From: A.J. Mullen	Respond to of 152472

Gregg, your informative post raises further questions for me. From what you said the QCP2700 dual mode seems more powerful than the Q. Why would dual mode ever be a disadvantage? Presumably the software is such that Sprint 1900MHz is always selected when available, so QCP2700 will have at least a marginal advantage for a long time to come. So why the price differential? Is it just the compact sexiness of the Q? I went into the La Jolla Radioshack yesterday. On the door was a single sheet with: "WE HAVE THE Q-PHONE." I asked the salesman about it and he said "we got seven in a week ago and we have one left." If Qcom can't sell them, then there is a problem with the distribution. La Jolla, by the way, is a suburb of San Diego; that Radioshack is probably the closest to Qcom's HQ. With regards to concerns for royalties associated with the w-cdma, I was under the impression that Jacob's original advance was power control. Without this no CDMA is viable. Does Qcom hold the patents associated with this? If so, then how long do they have to run? If the answers a yes, and at least ten years, then surely we're home and dry. AJ

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (8171)	2/8/1998 10:05:00 PM
From: Greg B.	Respond to of 152472

Gregg, thanks for sharing your insight. Just curious if you think Q phone should be re-launched in U.S. after dual-mode, dual band model is available, and rolled out as Sprint builds out its network. Getting the sense that QC launched the Q phone a little early in the U.S.? "First, a single-mode phone (like the current "Q") is very desirable in PCS markets that are fully built out because the subscriber never has to pay expensive roaming fees to utilize a non-Sprint analog/800MHZ network." It would be interesting (if you have access) to review the consumer purchase profiles in these market areas. Just wondering if the general consumer is investing in a phone with such capabilities. I know QC press releases are marketing hype, but sense from the "softening demand in U.S." realization that it's a price or awareness related issue. Otherwise, the marketing and production time lines (e.g., ramping up QCP-2700 unit production) would have been adjusted well before the SuperBowl party. Any further thoughts? Greg B.