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 (21448)	1/16/1999 9:26:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

*Correction* Wonky arithmetic in last post. Here is a correction received via private mail [to save me from writing it out] -------------------------------------------------------------- You slipped a decimal point. With 10M customers the spectrum will be paid off with $1 per customer per year (not $10) for 5 years. Of course that doesn't include any ROI, but that is in the noise. Just FYI. My expectation is that they will get 1M fairly wealthy customers who will happy to spend US$250 per year for local service, and another 1 or 2 million party lines (neighbors sharing a phone). Given that long distance charges will be on top of that, I would expect the consortium to make a very very very good return on investment if the capital equipment cost is pessimistically US$750 per customer. ----------------------------------------------------------------- I mistakenly wrote: "US$50m for 90m people with low incomes sounds a lot. That would be like $2m for New Zealand which seems way too much to me. Considering they'll only attract a small share of that 90m as customers. Say we get 10m customers, that's $10 per customer per year just to cover the spectrum cost [reducing spectrum to zero value over a 5 year period and expecting a decent return on investment]. I guess more like 2m are likely in the first 5 years, so we need more like $50 per person per year for spectrum. That is far from Gilder's vision of free spectrum." Should be: 10m customers, $2 per person per year to get $100m over 5 years for spectrum alone. For 2m customers, $10 per person per year to get $100, over 5 years. It is still far from free spectrum considering the data rate gobbled by WWeb compared with WLL for voice. Sorry, Mquacker

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (21448)	1/16/1999 9:49:00 PM
From: Valueman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

No worries Maurice--infrastructure has been a black hole for many quarters. Last conference call spelled out the poor showing they expected there. I would imagine that fact is cooked into the expected numbers. Maybe they even gave extra special guidance in that regard to Marc Cabi. Come to think of it, I wonder if he is the anonymous analyst that threw out that ERICY takeover comment to see how the masses would digest it, as a special favor to his omega-fish-oil-laden buddies. The big question is what the market will focus on--is it the losses at infrastructure and the sorry state there, or is it the joint venture, partnership, alliance that may come out of that state? My take is that this pre-earnings run had more to it. It was not just the earnings. The chatter about this kind of deal has run us up higher than one would expect. It's out there.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (21448)	1/18/1999 5:05:00 PM
From: Gregg Powers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Maurice: First...the $100mm per quarter number is just flat-out incorrect, try $100mm to $150mm per annum. Second...what happened to infrastructure? Well, the Russian "Federation" has for the time being self-immolated and the Ukraine is only marginally better off. Probably more important, from a near-term perspective, is a slowdown (not a stoppage mind you) of the Pegaso network deployment due to financing difficulties. I am surprised by your consternation. Did you forget that the company delayed recognition of $29mm in Russian infrastructure sales? Qualcomm's conservative guidance subsequent to the September conference call was directly the result of the aforementioned infrastructure issues, so a conservative estimation of these infrastructure "problems" are already baked into this year's business and the Street's estimates. You seem to have the analysis backwards. From my perspective, anything the company does to reduce the infrastructure drag, i.e. sale, JV, OEM agreement or something else, will be additive to 1999 operating earnings. Subsequent to whatever happens, the Street will most likely (a) need to adjust EPS estimates northward and (b) be relieved of a significant current uncertainty. As I pointed out in my prior update, Irwin & Company seemed to have developed a rather urgent sensitivity to the issue of shareholder value...something of a salutary development in my humble opinion. Best regards, Gregg