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 (27130)	4/15/1999 12:01:00 PM
From: Clarksterh	Respond to of 152472

Gregg - AND MUST PAY ROYALTIES AT THE SAME RATE REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER TECHNOLOGY IT SELLS. Moreover, the royalty rate is substantially equivalent to the baseline rate for IS-95. Do you get it? Ericsson capitulated completely. It is basically paying the same royalty as the Koreans and the Japanese, regardless of whether or not it sells IS-95 equipment or W-CDMA equipment. Even better, Qualcomm did NOT have to reduce its overall royalty rate (to Ericsson or anyone else) in order to achieve convergence. From god's mouth to my ears. I'll now remove the 'probably' from all of my posts about the 3g royalty rates being the same as CDMAOne rates. Thanks. Clark PS Nice to hear from you.

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (27130)	4/15/1999 12:04:00 PM
From: DaveMG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg, nice to hear from you...:-) With the convergence cloud lifted, IS-95 deployment should accelerate (since this equipment is available today and guaranteed compatible with anything that is deployed in the future) plus Qualcomm will be paid royalties AND participate directly in all 3G CDMA deployed ANYWHERE in the world (through royalties and equipment). The company's economic opportunity has been dramatically expanded. Since the parameters are still undecided how has the "convergence cloud" lifted? Isn't there a lot of room still for foul play? DMG

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (27130)	4/15/1999 12:28:00 PM
From: w molloy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

With the Holy War over, and Qualcomm positioned in a 'Microsoft'ian position with respect to royalties and an 'Intel'ian position with respect to ASICs, Nice to see you back Gregg. QCOM deal to unload the Handset division near completion then?.... :-) w

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (27130)	4/15/1999 12:29:00 PM
From: Mika Kukkanen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg: Let there be light...and there was light.. Great to see you back, has it taken that long to work out your tax returns? ;) Nice post, but I would challenge one assumption and that is the three modes will be mandatory. My view is that the three modes will be optional and that there is no real convergence. If they are optional -and no doubt they will be or otherwise we would have to have a handset with 3 different CDMA modes and a TDMA mode, not to mention the different frequencies- then by deploying IS-95 is no guarantee that it will be compatible with anything deployed in the future. Where is it stated that the three modes will be backward compatible with IS-95? The statements I have read have been carefully worded to say backward compatible with IS-95 and GSM-MAP. It doesn't say both. The optional part will ensure that the market decides, and by that I mean the consumer...if there is a need it will be fulfilled. As for capitulation it depends on your stance. every knows where we stand so I 'll take from the oppositions point of view: Qualcomm capitulated on their demands (so called fairness principles). You and I both know that the respective camps were only using their public positions as bargaining chips. So you could either say both camps capitulated or they both won...it just depends on what you are pessimistic or optimistic. Ericsson gained a rapid way of entering a new market, it wont be overnight, but overall they now have unparalled expertise in the total mobile infrastructure market. Not bad for the price, even though the losses will continue for a while but Ericsson is large enough to absorb it to make little difference even in the short-term. As for the royalties, I would still like to know exactly how Qualcomm set the royalty rate? It is immaterial to Ericsson as they are the ones not paying for it...it will be the consumer in the end. Now you may be closer to the source than anyone here, but can you enlighten as to what the cross-licensing really entails? Yes, I know it will be a net flow to Qcom, but how does it work? Anyway, great to see you back. All the best, Mika

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (27130)	4/15/1999 7:10:00 PM
From: MileHigh	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg, I seem to be local Ax on QCOM and I appreciate your thorough posts (even if I do not understand all of it yet <gg> With regard to your eps estimates going forward, please tell me if you have modeled in the loss of rev's from the sale of the infra biz. I have calculated that next 12 months sales will have to grow 20% to make up the loss of rev form the infra sale..... I understand that margins should now improve but their will might be some ST loss in rev's due to this sale therefore pressuring eps in the ST as well.. Your thoughts are appreciated... MileHigh

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (27130)	4/16/1999 5:39:00 AM
From: brian h	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg, The deal substantially changes the business economics for Qualcomm. The elimination of roughly $150mm in pretax infrastructure losses should add $1.35/shr to the company's FY2000 earnings. This number is not very clear to me. Are you saying 150 million is the loss on infra. bus. alone or the gross amount after 75 million loss plus 75 million pre-tax profit used against 75 million infra. business loss? TIA. Best, Brian H.

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (27130)	7/21/1999 2:37:00 PM
From: moat	Respond to of 152472

On behavioral psychology, investing and Qualcomm. According to the article below it will take Wall Street five quarters to price Q correctly. A quote from the article (regarding behavioral psychology and investing): "So how does it work? In making selections for the growth fund, Fuller bets that stock analysts and investors usually underreact to permanent, positive information for growth stocks. That's because analysts consistently lowball their estimates when a company is turning the corner, because they're "anchored in their existing views of the company's prospects." In fact, in Fuller's experience, it takes Wall Street about five quarters to catch up with a company's prospects." Read the full article here: interactive.wsj.com This stock is marching toward run-rate EPS $5 x 60 p/e, or $300/sh, by early C2000. That would be five quarters.