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 (11976)	7/2/1998 11:46:00 PM
From: dougjn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Maurice. Face it. For at least six months, this has been a lousy investment. I sold at 58+ in April. On the latest manufacturing blowup announcement. Glad I did. Not only is this stock lower since then. But other things I redeployed to are up strongly. I watch closely. But I think Korea and Asia are only getting worse. They are going into their Great Depression. Really. And truly. And Qcom is a great intellectual property house, but so far is a failure, as measured against its leading competition (especially Nokia, which I bought a bit after selling Qcom and am already up about 15% on), at manufacturing. It is neither clear that Qcom will succeed at manufacturing, nor that it will fail. Under current management. It has the enormous advantage of a large and continuing bankroll, thanks to CDMA licensing and OminiTracs. The jury is out on this. It may be that this is beyond the capabilities of current management. It would be an old story. (E.g., Cisco's first technology innovators and founders have been long gone for a long time.) On the other hand, I would tend to agree that I.Jacobs shows more versatility and promise here than is nearly ever the case. However, the bar is very high, and rarely hurdled by the same person who could bring the company through the technology wilderness. He is more likely to be the same person than almost anyone. But still perhaps only fifty fifty. Doug