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: Ramsey Su who wrote (8522)	2/14/1998 12:17:00 PM
From: Stewart V. Nelson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Ramsey <<It may even be logical for someone like LU and T to gobble up QCOM, take the IPR and use their financial muscle to really dominate the current explosive growth. >>> I would add MOT to the list of potential suitors!! regards Stewart V. Nelson

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (8522)	2/14/1998 12:48:00 PM
From: ED PLOPA	Respond to of 152472

To all: Just a synopsis of the latest estimate revisions that I've come across: ABN/CHICAGO COR decreased estimate for fiscal year ending 09/98 from $2.40 to $1.50 on 02/06/98 ABN/CHICAGO COR decreased estimate for fiscal year ending 09/99 from $3.00 to $2.30 on 02/06/98 DEUTSCHE MORGAN decreased estimate for fiscal year ending 09/98 from $1.75 to $1.43 on 02/06/98 DEUTSCHE MORGAN decreased estimate for fiscal year ending 09/99 from $2.10 to $1.88 on 02/06/98 HAMBRECHT&QUIST decreased estimate for fiscal year ending 09/98 from $2.18 to $1.50 on 02/06/98 Based on these three analysts QCOM (at circa 47) is selling at approx 31 times 9/98 earnings. Ed Plopa

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (8522)	2/14/1998 1:05:00 PM
From: DTA	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Ramsey, Couple of thoughts concerning takeover scenarios that have been getting recent attention. If Jacobs, White, and Viterbi, etc, did not believe in the longterm viability of their enterprise, then why did they embed antitakeover measures? To conclude that they did so just to gain buyout negotiating leverage doesn't make enough sense. Moreover, as long as Q is solvent and gaining acceptance across a range of markets (given the ETSI decision, among others)where questions seem to be leading toward solutions enabled only by Q IPRs and products, why would a price of even $100 get attention? Seems here that Q is one of the few companies that will determine how and where and in what form information will move over the next 10 years. Despite temporary problems in Asia and maybe some advertising deficits, Q to me still looks like an IBM.

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (8522)	2/14/1998 1:21:00 PM
From: brian h	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Ramsey, Takeover from any company? I stand by my previous post a while ago. QCOM, at least, worths more than $12 billion when T bought McCraw's Celluar One in 80's. With inflation adjusted and other factors, I say it worths at least $24 billion. We shall see in the future. Brian H.

To: Ramsey Su who wrote (8522)	2/15/1998 12:58:00 AM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Ramsey, the purpose of the aforementioned exercise was to provide perspective amidst all the current concern about Q2 earnings. My perspective is fundamentally that of a value investor. Throughout my career, my most economically successful stocks have been technology companies purchased at a material discount to intrinsic value. Simply put, the Street, and most tech investors, are extremely bi-polar towards technology--loving companies beyond all reason when things are good and vice-versa when pot-holes arise. Economic value, proxied by market position, intellectual property rights, royalty streams and hard won technology advantage, tends to be far less ephemeral than next quarter's earnings per share. Do I think QC is vulnerable? Yes. Poison pills, and other corporate governance defenses, simply require a potential acquirer to negotiate in good faith with the Board. In and of themselves, they do not prevent a transaction. Furthermore, QC's blocking position with respect to W-CDMA puts several large European telecom companies in a very difficult position. Do I hope for a transaction? No, I think an acquisition of QC at this juncture would be tragic both for the company and its shareholders. We have come awfully far, in a remarkably short period of time, so I would hate to see people be short-term greedy and long-term dumb. The importance of South Korea, from a domestic subscriber standpoint, is a rear-view mirror issue--as I've said repeatedly before, the rest of the world (U.S., Japan, China, India, Canada etc.) is the issue for 1998 and beyond. Investors are failing to grasp the difference between subscriber growth risks INSIDE Korea and export opportunities for Korean telecom companies (Samsung, LG Electronics etc.) OUTSIDE Korea--not to mention all the foreign exchange rate and handset pricing implications (e.g. royalties on Samsung handsets sold in the U.S. are not impacted by the won's decline because the transactions are dollar denominated) and so forth. Bottom line, as an investor, I philosophically differ from many on this page. Fixated on the three-to-five year timeframe, I am largely indifferent to the market's short-term vicissitudes, and would not consider trading out of my holdings simply to avoid a near-term mark-to-market decline. In my mind, the risk of being out of the stock, and failing to reestablish my position were the price to suddenly increase, dwarfs any concern over near-term volatility. Based on my analysis, QC is an accreting asset, trading at something near fifty cents on the dollar (as demonstrated in my prior post). Stock prices fluctuate in the short-term, and that provides opportunities for traders like Candle stick, which is fine. But, IMHO, significant wealth is most often created by investors focusing on long-term corporate value creation rather than traders looking to scalp a buck or two off the top. Best regards, GJP