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 (18043)	11/9/1998 6:40:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

Gregg, I know how much easier it is to pop a billion into a spreadsheet than it is to create the actual sales. I remember a year ago I guessed $4bn to the end of September. You thought $3.7bn if I remember rightly but I secretly hoped that they would do better than that, although I didn't have the analytical substance to justify it. As it happened, despite the interceding Korean collapse and other pandemonium, they nearly got to your figure. With about 70m shares and 60 cents profit, that's $40m profit. What I don't understand is how anyone can get $2.66 per share for next year. Sure, we can just multiply the 60 by 4, but people seem to be doing something more intricate. Oh, maybe $2.72. Or then again, $2.81. It seems the figures should be round numbers like $2, or $2.50 or $3. If there is $7 spent, that represents 10cents per share. With revenues and expenses in the $4bn range, exogenous events in the multimillion dollar range and lumpy decisions such as bidding on Australian spectrum, New Zealand spectrum, lucky escapes from Brazilian bidding, and the usual exigencies involved with getting and keeping customers, it bamboozles me how anyone can even remotely guess next year's profit. Other than to assume that QUALCOMM is good at managing money and will arrange spending patterns to match income, aiming to leave an increasing amount in the bottom line to demonstrate profit growth to shareholders. I realize that by being very particular, one can pin things down quite well. But with the MSM3000 coming on stream the projections for next year seem guesswork. We need only look at estimates for world wide cellphone growth over the past decade to see how hopeless projections are. And look at Motorola, Nokia and L M Ericsson market shares to see how fortunes can change VERY quickly. Not really asking for a comment. But don't you think that the analysts who seem to have a very limited grasp of The Q!'s business can't possibly predict the next year's profit? Mqurice PS: Yes, I know I like to quote 10 significant figures, but I'm sure people know I'm kidding.

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (18043)	11/9/1998 8:18:00 PM
From: bdog	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg, no offence intended. I guess my tone was a little glib. At the time that seemed the way to make a point which I still think to have some validity. You believe the company is seriously undervalued. Therefore there is a gap between reality and street perceptions. The company has a responsibility to communicate accurately, not caretake analyst perceptions. Surely then there is a way to give guidance which balances the future potential with the exogeneous shit that could happen. Bottom line: It is because I lack the tools to understand the fundamentals that I so value your opinion. It wasn't my intention to impugn your judgement. FWIW cognitive dissonance is a natural and inescapable psychological phenomena. I venture to say that every single long term investor in the Q - regardless of their intellectual rigor, is currently experiencing their fair share of it. Apologetically, bad bdog