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: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (195143)	8/7/2025 4:05:13 PM
From: Optntrdr1999	7 Recommendations Recommended By Art Bechhoefer BDAZZ jazzcat2000 kech manning18 and 2 more members Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197028

Are they directly manipulating the stock..... no.... are they influencing influencers to continually raise concerns about the loss of modem share - you can bet your life on it - they did it before - and not always were they subtle about it I suspect AAPl knows they have a problem in the modem area.... and they are using the same process they did in 2018 leading up to the ground breaking settlement and supply agreement..... i further suspect QCOM is not playing along as AAPL would like and is holding a much harder line on prices and royalty caps... In the end.... as much as AAPl will claim their modem is good enough.... they are proving they are not going all in by virtue of the leaked separate component designs for several more years.... if they have the better mousetrap.... it would be integrated into their SOC - its not planned until 2029 in the earliest Its a guess.... but anyone can read these tea leaves

To: Art Bechhoefer who wrote (195143)	8/7/2025 4:29:00 PM
From: matherandlowell	8 Recommendations Recommended By BDAZZ imc101 JeffreyHF Jon Koplik manning18 and 3 more members Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197028

" it would take at least a 5% position, up or down, to make a significant difference in the price of shares" Thank you for your always thoughtful replies, Art. Not to quibble, and I realize that my contention that Apple is manipulating the stock price is a paranoid hypothesis on its best day, but how do you derive the 5% rule above? Is this just a level which is well known in investor circles? Obviously, manipulation of stock would require more money the larger the capitalization of the stock being manipulated and the more volume activity the stock has. The 5% rule might be in effect for the SEC to be sensitive to price manipulations and it may have come about because in earlier days manipulators knew it would take about 5%. I just asked Google, or whatever it is that I have on this computer, to give me a list of all stocks selling for under a PE of 16 which have a growth rate of over 10%. Those of you (like Jim) who know more about AI could probably get a more meaningful reply from the program. I got a lot of generalizations about PEs and growth rates and many disclaimers. But the point is that Qualcomm's valuation is approaching being unique in today's market. A stock selling for a PE under 15 and a growth rate (revenues) above 15 is a rare entity-- particularly in this relatively highly valued market. I'm not saying that if no other reasonable explanation is known, I must be right; but you must admit that Qualcomm's valuation poses an interesting question. It's not like the company occasionally reports a loss. Or that it looks like a loss might come at any time. Or that the dividend might be in danger. Or that Qualcomm is likely to be displaced from the many customers it currently has. Parts of the business are growing very quickly. There is exactly one weird overhang on this stock right now, one factor that is not going in the right direction for certain powerful parties. And it's not ridiculous to wonder if that powerful party might be trying to stack the deck a bit. The timing is right. j.