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: Maurice Winn who wrote (10921)	5/27/1998 6:57:00 PM
From: Quincy	Respond to of 152472

Hi, Maurice. Do you have any suspicions what other companies (like Hutchison) who won spectrum in Australia are choosing for their air-air interface? Cellular license holders including Hutchison and AAPT (not familiar with them) could market themselves better against PCS providers (Vodaphone) if they have decent roaming and compatible equipment. B-)

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (10921)	5/27/1998 7:21:00 PM
From: limtex	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Maurice - Sorry I'm not a technical analyst I jsutnliked to invest in a stick that I thought had great technology behind it and would therefore grow in value over time. Over eight months and I beleived in the stock . along came super bowl and the Q advertising and and all the other announcements and good news that have come in betiween. Then I started to look at NOK.A despite the fact that having read the techh wars on this thread I believed that its tech was inferior. BUT with its inferior tech that stock doubled whi,e the Q went nowhere. So plian and simple if I had invested in the old tech NOK.A and not supoer tech Q oever the last year I would have DOUBLED my money. I have belatedly come to the conclusion that I could care less about technology since I now care mainly about return on capital so far as my investments are concerned. Regards, L

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (10921)	5/27/1998 7:49:00 PM
From: bdog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I agree with virtually all you and Gregg have had to say (even if I can't live it) and am now persuaded on the merits of the spin-off. And those smarty pants may have most of my shares but I wonder if they will feel good about it tomorrow? In this market do they even feel good about it today? For me its not demoralisation, just that I keep hearing this distant DUHM DUHM DUHM, figure it either for a shark or a train and decided to walk beside the track for awhile. I also share your and Gregg's basic optimism re. the ultimate resiliance of the Japanese economy, but think that it the short to medium term its probably headed for the ditch. If so, I'm assuming that would be quite bad for the Q. Within an even somewhat shorter term time frame only, but bad. Do you agree or disagree with this conclusion given the premise? I would really appreciate your (and others) opinion as I do intend to get back on the track. Its just a matter of when.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (10921)	5/27/1998 7:51:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Maurice: I really appreciate your perspective and wit. I am frankly concerned that to an ever greater degree our new paradigm stock market looks more and more like a financial bubble. In some respects the last three years have been analogous to a Las Vegas slot machine programmed so that the player either wins the jackpot or gets all his money back. Such is not the historical norm and it is frightening to witness investors' lack of perspective and the belief that linear appreciation, not to mention a thirty percent compound rate-of-return, is some kind of God-given right. One post earlier in the day really rankled me. The person impatiently commented that he didn't want to hear about "start-up" problems and that such was "a loser's excuse". I wonder if this person had ever financed a start-up, built a business from the ground up or run any kind of complicated manufacturing entity. From the vantage of someone who has done most, but not all of these things, I look at Qualcomm with awe. Given all the moving parts, I find it amazing that operations have gone as well as they have to date as few companies, in my experience, go from a standing start to something north of $3 billion in annualized revenue in just over eighteen months. It is a Herculean challenge simply to hire enough employees, let alone train them, to support such exponential growth. If you want to give yourself a headache, really contemplate what is necessary to set up the supply chain, and provide inventory management and quality assurance, for a handset operation that has ramped as quickly as QPE. Hell, Motorola couldn't even get the basic chipset to work. But still, Wall Street and the other Monday morning quarterbacks are quick to criticize and pontificate about the company's troubled manufacturing effort. Give me a break. Sadly, in our go-go market, many investors seem to conclude that something must be fatally askew if their investment does appreciate on a daily basis. God help these people when the bear market finally begins. I don't mean to wax pedantic, but I recently read a Forbes story on the new "stock traders"; a collection of individual investors playing the market through their internet brokers. It was horrifying. These people were playing with thousands and thousands of dollars, and apparently making decent profits, with only the vaguest understanding of the fundamental issues underlying their investments. Yet I remember a period, not all that long ago, when good companies, with sound businesses, would report excellent financial performance and their stocks would promptly decline the next day. Such things happen in a bear market. The elevator seems to be getting painfully full and awfully close to the penthouse suite. Best Regards, Gregg