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: DTA who wrote (12558)	7/18/1998 3:41:00 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Respond to of 152472

DTA - re: communications problem -- personally, I have never thought that there was a communications problem. I know I do not think like a Wall Street "analyst," but to me, that is not an insult. I assume trying to convey things to people in Washington may require yet another communications skill. (Here's the story, and here's the unmarked 10's and 20's (?)). Jon.

To: DTA who wrote (12558)	7/18/1998 4:00:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

I'm not the Surfer (don't have the wit) but seems to this lurker that the company that had the Vice President swing into action with the State Dept going on a full court press re the Russian unpleasantness of not too long ago, isn't exactly a babe in the woods re Washington power. And having Brent Scowcroft on the board for political balance ain't exactly small town stuff. Suggest that present management has a track record in this as in cutting edge technology which deserves cheers not tears. All just IMO of course. And I hear a different drum than the gloomers and doomers here. :-) Tinkering with the management that got us here is to coin a phrase - stupid - IMO. And fortunately, meaningless, since management is the company for all practical purposes just as Bernard L Schwartz is Loral. If you invest in either you are buying present management (brilliant and successful thank God) . 'Nuf Chaz

To: DTA who wrote (12558)	7/20/1998 11:49:00 AM
From: bananawind	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

DTA, I don't know the name of the firm, but have read that Q has hired a high powered DC lobbyist who formerly represented none other than Ericcson!! -JLF

To: DTA who wrote (12558)	7/20/1998 12:38:00 PM
From: JMD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

DTA, you raise an interesting point re: perceived communications problems with the Q and its management. My remarks were directed at relations with the Wall Street community, whom I continue to believe generally cuts the Q precious little slack. Every company in the universe has been hammered by Asia and the Q was one of the first to fess up and go public with the carnage. Yet Wall Street felt they were not given proper guidance. Applied Materials said they same thing and Morgan was praised for candor. Go figure. Washington, D.C. seems to be another story. With the Beltway Boys, the Q appears to be on much better terms. Whether this is due to the Irwin/Jacobs tandem having longer familiarity with the FCC and Pentagon contracts, et.al. going back to Linkabit (sp?), Snowcroft, or Astrological rhythyms I have no idea. Certainly Kennard is a champion for CDMA and by extension the Q. Whatever, I will listen to the CC with great interest. Karnak