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: Gregg Powers who wrote (13531)	8/10/1998 3:52:00 PM
From: John Cuthbertson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Re: Marc Cabi's blurb. In addition to what Gregg mentioned, it is also a bit unfair for Mr. Cabi to complain that "the quality of earnings was questionable as Qualcomm continues to beat EPS estimates through the exclusion of one-time charges." First off, QCOM did not exclude the charges from the reported quarterly earnings; that's why the quarter's EPS was 8 cents. Qualcomm's report also quite properly included a broken-out figure for earnings from operations, which was the good number that most people chose to focus on. Some analysts' estimates for earnings are meant to include non-recurring items, and some are meant to exclude them. There's nothing systematic about this, which can be confusing, but if the consensus estimates are given on a basis of excluding one-time charges it is non-sensical to complain that the estimates were beaten by excluding those charges! The same comments would hold true for the previous quarter, when the non-recurring item was a big positive number. I suppose then Mr. Cabi would have complained that QCOM beat estimates only through the inclusion of one-time gains. ==John

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (13531)	8/10/1998 3:56:00 PM
From: JMD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg, Was well aware of your prior posts on Cabi; kind of an approach avoidance for me on putting it out to the thread. I have been privy through sources other than you about his anti-Q bias so on the one hand: why publish a guy that you know is not even trying to be objective? OTOH, seems like everybody should know all the scuttle butt that's making the rounds. Note also that even the Volpe guy had some factual goofs in his positive write-up as Jon points out. When the Q blows the roof off next quarter, I plan on an irrational display of exuberance in front of Cabi's office, which is about a 4 iron from me, sad to say. Regards, Mike Doyle