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: DaveMG who wrote (26368)	4/7/1999 11:16:00 AM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Thanks for the interesting post. I've thought of purchasing Mr. Fisher's book; but it looks like if I am patient enough, most of it will eventually be posted on SI ! Jon.

To: DaveMG who wrote (26368)	4/7/1999 12:59:00 PM
From: bananawind	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Dave, Very well done. Charlie Munger, who as you know is Warren Buffett's co-chairman and alter-ego, has given some wonderful public lectures on the importance/usefulness of keeping a handful of simple, mutidisciplinary models in the back of your head when looking at business value and value vs. market price discrepancies. He draws from models that are wide ranging - psychology, economics, physics, chemisty, etc. It is amazing how often simple concepts like, say, negative feedback loops or cognitive dissonance can be extremely useful in understanding businesses and their valuations. Fisher does much the same, although not on the elemental level of Munger's approach. Regarding I felt the story hadn't in fact changed nearly as much as the psychology. I would agree strongly. Q's value as a business did not triple in the last ninety days, although the stock price did. Mike B's response re analysts changing their estimates indicates that he is not really on the same page in understanding this. As Gregg Powers has pointed out many times over the last few years, Qualcomm until very recently represented one of the largest diversions between internal business reality and external perception in recent memory. Irwin and company have steadily built a powerful wealth generating engine. Resolution of the Ericcson FUD and 3G issues did not really change that engine so much as it made the roadway a little easier to navigate. Even with the tripling of the stock price it is not clear to me that the market fully understands Qualcomm's enormous opportunity and competitive advantage. Irwin and the engine are not done by a long shot, and Wall Street's inability to look 3 or 4 years down the road probably means the divergence with internal reality is not over. Speaking of Gregg Powers - While he may be on his honeymoon, there there are some other possible reasons for his continued absence: a)his phones are ringing off the hook with happy clients and referrals to new business; b)he is in the midst of a major QCOM buy based on a reevaluation of its earning power 3 or 4 years down the road; c)he is privy to the "more details" of the Ericy deal that will be discussed when earnings are released and rightly must avoid revealing these here; d)or [my favorite] he is privy to a China deal involving Ericy cdma infrastructure sales, Q handset contracts, and/or Q manufacturing handsets in China. Sorry for the long post. With all the traffic on the thread, I didn't want to post multiple times to get these thoughts out. Best regards to all, Jim

To: DaveMG who wrote (26368)	4/8/1999 12:12:00 AM
From: Mike Buckley	Respond to of 152472

Dave, Yes but I think people who owned the stock felt that this "value" was already there, locked in if you will... In that context, I understand your point entirely. For those who were so convinced of the fundamentals that the value was locked in, your point is irrefutable in my mind. As I continued reading the rest of your LONG post, it got better and better. Thanks for taking the time to put your thoughts originally brought out in our mini debate in such complete context. And for those who don't know who the Mike B. is that was quoted disagreeing with you, you and I know it is ... --Mike B(uckley) :)