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 (27704)	4/20/1999 6:18:00 PM
From: marginmike	Respond to of 152472

Honestly gregg did you know they were going too do THIS well this quarter?

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (27704)	4/20/1999 6:20:00 PM
From: Caxton Rhodes	Respond to of 152472

I don't know Gregg, you're smelling pretty good to me! Caxton

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (27704)	4/20/1999 7:45:00 PM
From: quidditch	Respond to of 152472

Gregg: Random observations on the CC, "negative" and positive: First, the points that, in construing them most adversely to Q's position, one might consider them "negatives" (this thread is well aware of most of these): --Dr. said he has "varying amounts of enthusiasm" for the progress in convergence of 3G standards, which I took to mean that discussions among operators to arrive at conventions for, among other matters, a common chip rate, are going slowly. --Similarly, Dr. J indicated that it "is not assured" that ETSI will sanction all operating modes of 3G as opposed to WCDMA only. As to ETSI supporting only WCDMA, this of course does not affect royalties ("same rate across all modes") but is a bummer re. direct sales. Q may have to find a backdoor to CDMA2000 ASIC and handset sales into Europe. This is not news. --Dr. J "expects that there may be patent challenges" in Europe. Of course, as to these first three points, the degree of ERICY's enthusiasm and support (or lack thereof) for the spirit of the Q-ERICY deal could be influential. What is in the eye of the beholder? No new details on the deal emerged, to my reckoning (See positives re IPR.) --Korean government subsidies for handsets are declining (ending?) and Q has noticed less print advertising for wireless. In a different context, Q indicated that percentage of product sales/royalties to Korea would decline as a percentage of the total (pie is growing). --The "black hole" of component shortages. Dr. J and RS said that this has been managed, but it looms in Q-3 and may impede the upward march of gross margins. Positives, many on the financial analysis aspects of the Q-2 results: --In addition to growth in top line due to strong demand, handset margins are expected to improve. Licensee reports indicate strong Q-3. --The $0.82 exclusive of charges (pro forma $1.20) reflects equity losses in investees of $5 million (mainly WK and the Ukraine venture). At some point, this turns into a positive number, we hope. Sony's minority interest in QPE of $3 million also backed out. If my understanding is correct, SG&A attributable to the infrastructure was NOT stripped out in the pro forma calculation, so there may be upside to the dimension of the positive impact of losing infra. --Royalties: the sterling Q-2 numbers did not reflect any material one-time, up-front fees, thereby magnifying the improvement YoY Q-2 1998. Q's "conservative" estimations of current royalty accruals have tended to result in upward revisions for actualizations to current quarter results based on actual royalty reporting. This may be harder to get a handle on in future quarters as the market broadens. More to come (if anybody cares), but I gotta run. Regards. Liacos_samui

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (27704)	4/20/1999 8:03:00 PM
From: Morgan Drake	Respond to of 152472

You know, a Book:Bill of 1.7 means a compound quarterly growth rate of about 14%. That's before increasing the quarterly baselines for additional product/service growth and that of new markets. Couple that with margin growth and this could well turn out to be the Mother of All Gorillas. As far as analysts go, they know more than they let on. There is no reward for an analyst forecasting correctly $7/share when all the other analysts are forecasting $4.50/share. Cause if he's wrong, he's killed off both his clientele and his career. Analysts play it safe and bunch together, going up in increments. Thus, if the gang is forecasting $4.50 and it looks like $7.00, then our buddy will forecast $4.75. If he's high, he won't be too high and he'll still be with the pack. If he's right, he's righter than the pack and he increases his chances of making Institutional Investor's All Star Team (and the big bucks that go with that honor.) - Morgan

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (27704)	4/20/1999 8:04:00 PM
From: Ramsey Su	Respond to of 152472

Gregg, lets see, a double+ on QCOM, a double+ on Lame Research (by the way, I just don't see what you saw in that company), how come you are not on CNBC, instead of those clowns. Ramsey

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (27704)	4/20/1999 9:08:00 PM
From: DanD	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg, I did a little math on the ASIC book to bill. The report said that they sold about 9 million ASICS this quarter. That means if the price stays constant over the next quarter the number of ASICS for this upcomming quarter will be 15.3 million. I then for giggles kept going to see what it would be if the 1.7 ratio stayed constant. If it does then the total asics after 4 more quarters would be 75.17 million. ] 9 1.7 = 15.3 1.7 = 26.01 1.7 = 44.217 1.7 = 75.17 I doubt very seriously if the demand for ASICs will be that much in the next year, but how about if we change the book to bill to degrade to a healthy 1.1 over time. 9 1.7 = 15.3 1.5 = 22.95 1.3 = 29.84 1.7 = 32.81 Do you think these numbers are reasonable? will there be that much demand for chipsets in the next year? If so what does this mean to royalty growth? If the final number is 32.81 * 150 * .04 = 262.55 mil in royalties with a 4 percent royalty and 150 dollar average price for phones I am guessing the price of phones will come down. This of course does not include other ASIC vendor paying royalties and also does not include straight phone sales Are these numbers at all close? Dan D

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (27704)	4/20/1999 9:25:00 PM
From: Morgan Drake	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg: Re Steve Maslin's Observations... --- Although I didn't hear the CC, it sounds as though Dr. J is pessimistic on convergence of 3G standards beneficial to Q. --- Ditto for ETSI sanctioning of all CDMA for 3 G. --- Dr. J "expects that there may be patent challenges" in Europe. This one concerns me greatly as I think that ERICY is not beyond creating a hell of a lot more mischief in the legal arena in Europe and elsewhere. Further, if they did, here comes the monthly legal retainers again, in spades. --Korean government subsidies for handsets are declining. This doesn't worry me too much, as the world got itself outfitted pretty well with TVs, PCs, VCRs, Sony Walkmen, and cars sans govt subsidies. I think the same will hold for wireless phones. --The "black hole" of component shortages. Not a major long term problem for us I would think. Could be worse. Could have surpluses indicating nobody wanted to buy the end product as fast as they could be put together. --- No mention of the Russian situation and the release of reserves? I'm sure we would all appreciate your take on these issues. Also, is there going to be a replay of the CC? If so, how can we listen in? Thanx. Morgan

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (27704)	4/20/1999 10:09:00 PM
From: DWB	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 152472

I've got a question for the more knowledgeable folks on the thread... how come QCOM sold their infrastructure division at a profit, but are writing off this huge one time charge in association with it? Shouldn't they have a big GAIN instead. This has confused me ever since the deal was announced. The only way I can make sense of it, is they are making use of the opportunity to write off a bunch of things on their books, which in reality saves them some taxes to Uncle Sam, but otherwise doesn't effect the company's prospects going forward (other than trailing PE ratios and the like...). If there is another explanation that someone without an MBA from the Wharton school of business can understand, I'd love to hear it. TIA, DWB

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (27704)	4/21/1999 1:20:00 AM
From: JGoren	Respond to of 152472

Gregg, even so, you got a nice wedding present! I am listening to the conference call now. I am very impressed at the confidence expressed by management and the manner in which their discussion before the question period addressed certain issues that most of us wanted to know. In particular, they affirmatively addressed the Samsung chip issue early on and reiterated their confidence that the relationship with Samsung is strong and that Qcom will remain the dominant supplier of ASIC's to Samsung and, in effect, that Samsung's interest in making its own chips is to maintain two sources of supply--as is common for most manufacturers.

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (27704)	4/21/1999 3:24:00 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Gregg: I am seriously thinking about "pulling the trigger" on my AOL and adding it to my QCOM stake in the morning. That would bump me from 40% to 60% in Q, with 25% in Cisco and 15% in softy. I would be down to "The Three Gorillas". Looking at that 'Pro Forma" 1.20 this quarter, and projecting with no more write offs and no more drain from the sold division, are we looking at projections of an annualized $7.00 for next year? If so, that means, at a 50 PE, a 350 price. (If you want to "dream on", a 490 price at 70 PE) I would like to hear from some of you "number crunchers". LindyBill

To: Gregg Powers who wrote (27704)	4/24/1999 8:09:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Respond to of 152472

Gidday Gregg, nice to see you...sure hope it's all going well, the bride showed up on time and all that stuff...hic...let's hear a speech! If you don't have time right now, that's fine and I suspect you'll not be coming back to earth until you get back from the South Pacific honeymoon. But you can't stay away forever. How's your odour/odor/ardor/ardour/perfume today? Smelling of jasmine? Il Bacio? Hello to all you SI concatenated, convoluted and orthogonalized crowd from past and present. May your days be merry and future bright. Mqurice [a long time AZERTY sufferer - give me the QWERTY world anyday and computers that do what I want....hmmmmm...maybe wives and children too....then again,...gee, no, need a bit of independent spirit in people]