posted 08-03-2000 05:45 PM         

Anyway, here' a good article that discusses how irrational investors were with regards to the warning. Though, as I tried to do, take it with a grain of salt, since the author is an investor.

posted 07-27-2000 09:02 AM         

"In the coming months Nokia Mobile Phones plans to commence shipments of several advanced models. We anticipate Nokia's earnings per share in the third quarter to be at least equal to the level achieved in the third quarter of 1999. However, due to the timing of the new product introductions as well as seasonality, the are projected to be lower than in the second quarter of this year."

posted 06-30-2000 09:07 AM         

"Meanwhile, telecom companies could give the market a little lift today after weakness in the sector put major pressure on markets in Europe, Asia and the US yesterday. After analysts said the drops in telecom were unfounded, European investors were boosting equipment makers like Alcatel, Ericcson and Nokia. This morning, Goldman Sachs added Ericsson and Nokia to its European Recommended List."

Yesterday, telecom stocks rocked Europe and US, and today they are helping both markets, all because of "comments".

posted 06-22-2000 05:34 PM         

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Shares of Qualcomm Inc. (QCOM.O) jumped in heavy trading on Thursday on revived speculation that the wireless communications technology company could be a takeover target for Finnish mobile phone giant Nokia Corp. (NOK.N), but analysts downplayed the rumors.

Qualcomm stock ended 3-3/4 higher at 68-1/4 on Nasdaq after earlier rising as high as 73-7/8. Qualcomm was the second most active stock on Nasdaq, with more than 42 million shares changing hands.

Nokia's shares fell 4/15 to 55-13/16 on the New York Stock Exchange, and was the third most traded stock, on volume of 19 million shares.

Analysts generally downplayed the speculation.

``I would find it surprising, not because Qualcomm is not attractive, but given the attractiveness of its business model and free cash flow, it could set off a fierce bidding war if put into play,'' First Union Securities analyst Mark Roberts said.

Given that the stock traded as high as $200 earlier this year, analysts noted that San Diego-based Qualcomm would likely command a steep premium. Others noted that Nokia did not seem to be a fitting acquirer.

``I haven't heard of Qualcomm being a takeover target,'' Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown analyst Brian Modoff said. ``But anything can get taken over by a big company. It would make more sense if it were another large chipmaker, such as Texas Instruments or Intel.''

He said that a takeover by Nokia could jeopardize Qualcomm's customer base, 50 percent of which are handset vendors that directly compete with Nokia.

posted 06-21-2000 04:03 PM         

Not really impressed by either argument (too brief), but I thought this part was the real importance:
"From an investment standpoint, the main difference between Nokia and Motorola is that Nokia is a pure play in wireless communications, while Motorola is primarily a microchip manufacturer in a field crowded by everyone from Intel to IBM. While Motorola has re-established itself as a viable digital wireless communications equipment supplier, the annual results from Motorola's entire wireless division can easily be lost in the noise of a single multibillion-dollar infrastructure investment in new semiconductor fabrication facilities. Wireless is Nokia's lifeblood, but merely a hobby to Motorola."

Now any company whose main competition isn't really competition is a godsend to an investor, especially a company run so well.

Also, I'm not sure I agree with this statement by the bear:
"These companies, and several courts, have established that Qualcomm owns critical chunks of W-CDMA, even though the company was not an active developer of the standard."
I've talked to a number of communications insiders who believe that Qualcomm's supposed CDMA patent is not a reality, and Nokia will do just fine challenging it. Why complete a royalty agreement when you don't need to?