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: Todd E Godwin who wrote (8229)	2/8/1998 8:48:00 PM
From: JMD	Respond to of 152472

Todd, you money fund guys beat us on total return over the past 2 1/2 years BUT we QCOM longs assumed vastly greater risk. Mike Doyle

To: Todd E Godwin who wrote (8229)	2/8/1998 10:25:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Todd, I understand your cynicism about management, but it is misplaced in this case. Do you really believe that management would risk its personal net worth to tout the stock up for a two week window just to support a Super Bowl promotional campaign? Let's face it, every analyst on the Street was scrutinizing Asia, and questioning the company's position vis-a-vis South Korea--and you're suggesting the company hoped to "slip one by unnoticed"? Things may work that way in a Grisham novel, but not here. Didn't you notice that Sawtek had a similar release that coincided with QC's? Isn't it more reasonable to conclude that Samsung unilaterally modified its order schedule than to suggest that QC management decided to commit securities fraud for no economic gain (i.e. what, besides grief, did management get out of the two week window?). People need to understand that Korea is not a monolithic topic. QC is selling the Koreans chipsets destined for domestic consumption (i.e. SK Telecom et al) and for export markets (i.e. the U.S., Japan etc). Samsung has publicly stated that it intends to substantially increase its export sales, from 25% of its output to 50%, during 1998. Given the pace of global CDMA deployments, QC management was not capricious in its believe that the Koreans could offset home market weakness through export sales (particularly in light of the weak won). Unfortunately, it apparently is taking the Koreans longer to ramp export sales, and this is pushing out their chip demand--but people, let's get a grip here--QC's chip volume is going to be even with the December quarter--we are talking about a flattening of demand, not a sequential decline. As I noted before, the company indicated that Q2 revenue will be flat to up slightly from the $785mm reported in Q1. Earnings will be down due to (1) a sequential decline in royalties (due directly to the won's devaluation), (2) higher selling expenses associated with the Superbowl promotion and (3) gross profit margin pressures due to the canceled Hansol contract and soft "Q" phone sales. The company had clearly budgeted for higher revenue--so its business plan corroborated management's previous guidance--hence the earnings shortfall.

To: Todd E Godwin who wrote (8229)	2/8/1998 11:57:00 PM
From: DTA	Respond to of 152472

Todd, it's hard to argue with the bottom line. Holding for two years for squat may be the zen approach to enrichment, but hardly pays for the saki required after conference calls. I think that long for Q holders means geologic time, relatively speaking. Someone said that this is still a good traders' stock and I agree, at least until 4th Qtr. Also think that management has some substantial non-engineering problems to solve before then. Duane

To: Todd E Godwin who wrote (8229)	2/9/1998 12:53:00 AM
From: GO*QCOM	Respond to of 152472

Slight difference in 1995 to now QUALCOMM is in a second stage of growth.First establish CDMA works(launch station Korea) then spread globally.One needs to be patient when establishing on a worldwide basis.Compare your money market to QCOM in 1999.I bet you won't feel the same.Lets check this again then.

To: Todd E Godwin who wrote (8229)	2/9/1998 5:55:00 PM
From: John Cuthbertson	Respond to of 152472

"That's right, you could have bought QCOM at 47 3/4 in August 1995, held it for 2 1/2 years, and not made a dime." Yeah, yeah, yeah. Or, you could have bought it at 36 in October 1996 for about a 33% return to date over 15 months. Just depends on where you pick your end points, doesn't it? The fact that this stock has tended to get ahead of itself is pretty well known to people on this thread. Yes, we know, it's quite volatile. This has enabled me to buy low and sell high a few times over in the past, for which I'm appropriately grateful. (But this is a strategy that I'm now much more reluctant to pursue, because QCOM has in the past several months begun to make real money, and thus has IMO turned the corner from being a purely prospective play to being driven by earnings.) One thing I agree with from your post is your definition of 6-12 months as "near term." But your example purporting to show a zero return to long term holders is unconvincing. How many long term holders, vs. short term momentum players, were buying at the peak in 1995? Someone recently posted a link to a six year chart on this thread. I invite you to go look. ==John