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: marginmike who wrote (27379)	4/18/1999 12:04:00 PM
From: kech	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

MarginM - I don't follow your question - "What is the difference between 1000 GSTRF and 150 QCOM?"

To: marginmike who wrote (27379)	4/18/1999 12:42:00 PM
From: MMW	Respond to of 152472

1000 shares of GSTRF is about the same as 150 shares QCOM in value. But difference is in the fundamental quality of the two companies. As far as value of share appreciation. The percentage of the growth of each dollar increase or decrease would be big difference. Depending on your point of view of each individual company growth rate and future prospect, I would bet money on QCOM. Cheers! Mike

To: marginmike who wrote (27379)	4/18/1999 1:05:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

To Marginmike: The clear question is why did your "someone" buy GSTRF rather than QCOM? Was is just that the "someone" could get more shares and was completely uninterested in what he/she was buying? Many of us own the Q and also Loral and G*. I hope that few of us bought any of them on the basis that the $ price of one was lower than the $ price of the other - ignoring everything else. Either these companies are good investments for the long run based on their fundamentals or they are not. Simple, no? For trading, knowledge of emotion, irrationality, herd mentality and luck plus technical analysis (for what that may be worth) may matter more than "split analysis" :-) And in the short run, fundamentals seem of slight interest while what the herd is doing is key. Fun, is it not? Might as well smile, but invest as fits your own situation and skill. <<<<g>>>>> Chaz

To: marginmike who wrote (27379)	4/18/1999 3:01:00 PM
From: JGoren	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

G* will do well, and probably better IMHO over the next year and a half than Qcom. Whether or not your friend calculated it this way, Qcom just moved through revaluation. G* has yet to do so. Better price appreciation with G* once it gets up and running and the revenues become clearer; it is now depressed. I would compare G* now to Qcom 6 months to a year ago. Very long term (next 5-10 years), I would think Qcom has the better growth prospects if Qcom executes and is able to exploit is market.

To: marginmike who wrote (27379)	4/18/1999 6:28:00 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Mike, JGoren, and others regarding GSTRF and QCOM, I tend to agree with JGoren that the appreciation potential of GSTRF in the short run may be much greater, but so is the risk. GSTRF is different from QUALCOMM. From its inception, QCOM had a cash flow generated by the OMNITRACS products, which helped to provide the cash needed to finish developing CDMA. G* has nothing to generate revenue until it launches enough satellites to begin service. They just launched four more last week, so they are on schedule to begin service sometime this fall. Furthermore, G* is heavily leveraged as a result of its junk bonds, and it may become even more leveraged if it needs to issue more bonds or convertible preferred shares in order to meet its continuing expenses. In short, the stock is VERY risky compared to QCOM. The junk bonds, however, in my view, are quite safe, inasmuch as the 2 principal shareholders (Loral and QUALCOMM) very likely don't want any default, leading to a bankruptcy filing. One thing going for the stock is some significant insider buying. Assuming the subsequent satellite launches are successful, and assuming service can start sometime this fall, it is not clear to me that there will be any profits for at least two or three years. That would negatively affect my willingness to buy shares now, but many other investors in technology areas don't seem to mind not having any profits. Just look at the action in AMZN and other internet related stocks.