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: rhet0ric who wrote (11303)	6/9/1998 2:10:00 PM
From: Deep Margin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Q-thread Haven't lurked here for a while, but just received my quarterly report by snail mail and I'M PISSED! This is probably old news on the thread, but FWIW here's my take. Management opens with the big numbers, 26m net earnings vs 17m yr ago. But the increase is mainly due to a huge tax decrease and an accounting change that booked a one-time increase in licensing fees and royalties. Net operating income was only up around 35k, or less than 6%, and if we subtract the 18k from the accounting change less than 3%. I hate this nonsense. It's infantile, and it doesn't even work. If I caught it, you can bet every Street analyst did...back on April 21 when this was released. Stock spiked over 60 that day and has been selling off ever since. Really, Irwin, be a mensch, if you have problems, just say so and talk about plans to fix it. I am truly disgusted by this. There is a way to play this game. Disney hid bad results so effectively that by the time Barrons blew the whistle a couple months ago no one cared any more. But Irwin, if a not-real-smart guy like me can see through your numbers, you gotta go back to the other game. It's called honesty. mpf

To: rhet0ric who wrote (11303)	6/9/1998 2:28:00 PM
From: sd_yomar	Respond to of 152472

I agree that the "news report" is probably fake. Being a former editor, I can tell you that there's no way the copyediting department would have let that piece run with all it's grammatical problems. Don't you mean "its" grammatical problems? (Are you really a former editor?) Are we even talking about the same post? This is the one that I believe was referred to: Message 4779420 I don't see any grammatical problems. As for the quotes sounding unnatural, they could easily be quoting written statements, while the "bar" setting was invented. rhet0ric Come on everybody - look at the author's name ...