f*******2
发帖数: 341 | 1 最近两天，激进大股东Jana Partners向高通（Qualcomm Inc。）施压，望其考虑将芯
片业务与专利授权业务分拆开来的消息颇受关注。虽然有分析者认为，高通或许会扛不
住压力，步eBay后尘被迫分拆。但在4月14日早晨，高通仍坚定回应称当前的企业结构
最合理，能带给股东更大价值，不太可能考虑重组计划。
无法分拆的业务
将芯片业务和专利授权业务拆分的想法只是股东的一厢情愿，一旦两个业务拆分开，就
很难继续捆绑收取巨额专利费用。
近期，高通在资本市场的表现的确不如人意。虽然曾连涨6年，但今年高通的股价一直
不振，2015年年初至今已下跌近7%，过去1年内下跌了11%，近日更有美国投行FBR&Co下
调了对高通的股票评级。糟糕的股价表现也令包括Jana Partners在内的大股东不满。
当然，将芯片业务和专利授权业务拆分的想法也只是股东的一厢情愿，尽管高通通过巨
额专利授权的收入目前已经占据高通利润的2/3，芯片业务从表面看并不是高通的主要
收入来源。
“如果真要分开，高通专利费一分也收不到。那个大股东认为高通现在的股价只反映了
高通专利公司的价值，没有体现高通芯片的价值，拆分后高通的总市值会提升。然而他
对高通模式并不了解。”曾向国家发改委投诉高通专利模式的手机中国联盟秘书长王艳
辉向《中国电子报》记者强调。
他表示，目前手机厂商要购买高通芯片的前提是先授权使用高通专利，逼着厂商必须缴
纳专利费。一旦两个业务拆分开成为两家公司，捆绑就不会这么紧密，继续捆绑要求厂
商支付专利费也不符合商业规则，很难继续收取巨额专利费用。
对于高通来说，芯片业务和专利授权业务密不可分。虽然15年前高通自己也曾提出过拆
分方案，但显然在未来的很长一段时间内，高通都不可能选择将“能下蛋的母鸡”——
芯片业务单独拆分出去。
不安宁的一年
高通在2015财年第一财季财报中，将对今年全年营收业绩的展望下调了2%，并收到了中
国国家发改委60.88亿元的罚款单。
事实上，对于高通来说，这已经不是今年遭遇的第一件糟心事了。
在今年的2015财年第一财季财报中，高通早已下调对今年全年业绩的展望，预期营收比
上年下滑2%。
2月10日，中国国家发改委确定高通垄断行为，并对其开出了60.88亿元（约9.75亿美元
）的罚款，相当于高通2013年度在华销售额的8%，并迫其下调3G和4G相关的专利许可费
用。王艳辉认为，这正是高通股价开始持续下滑的主要原因。
高通今年的拳头产品——骁龙810处理器自发布后也一直深陷发热问题中。多家媒体报
道和跑分测试都显示，这款并不完美的产品在超过特定电压后就会出现过热现象，从而
影响处理器的性能表现。为此，高通已在MWC期间提到了下一款高端处理器产品骁龙820
，并透露将在下半年开始试产，今年年底或明年年初进行大批量出货。
竞争对手的表现也让高通忧心。
首当其冲的就是曾是高通长期客户的三星。跟据Chipworks的拆解报告，三星新出售的
智能手机Galaxy S6中就已经搭载了自己研发的Exynos微处理器，连LTE基带芯片也同样
是三星自己研发的产品，从而取代了原本依赖的高通芯片。
联发科也在强势攻占4G市场，近日刚刚公布了面向高端市场的Helio系列旗下首款处理
器，力图从原本的中低端市场跨界进入高通的中高端市场地盘。而为了进一步与高通抗
衡，今年联发科已早早备战，准备了充足的4G芯片前端元件PA、Switch等，以确保供应
链充足。
王艳辉向记者指出，眼前高通所遭遇的竞争以及国家发改委的判罚对高通商业模式方面
的影响都不大，今年还是高通总体形势较好的一年。“但明年就很难讲了，股价反映了
未来市场。今年联发科在4G上还很难对高通形成冲击，但明年其对高通的冲击会很大，
包括展讯在LTE上也会越来越成熟。”王艳辉说。
为保持目前市场领先地位，高通必须在新兴领域寻找机会，找到未来增长的亮点。从目
前高通自己披露的信息来看，汽车、保健、网络、智能家居、智能城市、可穿戴设备等
都可能是高通未来的新增长领域。 | d******1
发帖数: 349 | 2 Qualcomm: chips off the block
For a mature tech company, the trick of the trade is to choose what to exit,
and when. Qualcomm, founded 30 years ago, has made some smart exits, such
as selling its handset business in 1999 and its infrastructure business that
same year. Is it now time for the company to bow out of its chipset
business, too?
Qualcomm has openly considered this idea in the past, and recently investors
have started clamouring for it as well. The most valuable part of Qualcomm
is considered by analysts to be its licensing business, which supplies most
of the IP for 3G and 4G wireless in smartphones. These licensing royalties
account for just a quarter of revenue, but two-thirds of profits. Meanwhile
Qualcomm's chipset business brings in the bulk of revenue but less than half
of profits. The businesses can complement each other when a new wireless
communication standard is being introduced: for example Qualcomm can develop
the IP behind a new standard like LTE (Long Term Evolution), and then
simultaneously develop chipsets that incorporate LTE to prove how the
technology works. But this synergy matters less at a time like the present,
when Qualcomm already licenses a large majority of global handset, Credit
Suisse points out.
Breaking up a company can make sense if one part of the company is weighing
the other down, or if different segments have different growth trajectories.
But in this case, both of Qualcomm's business are facing similar headwinds,
which has helped drive its share price down 17 per cent in the past 12
months. The licensing business has suffered declining revenues and profits,
due to falling prices for smartphones (royalties are paid on the price of
the phone) and to smaller royalty rates (such as the recent settlement in
China). The chipset business has also seen growth slow, and is under
pressure from increased competition from companies like MediaTek.
Nevertheless chipsets are Qualcomm's only source of profit growth.
Sure, the company might want to consider selling if a willing buyer for the
chipset business came along at the right price (CS puts the enterprise value
of the chipset business at $43bn). And Qualcomm's shares do look cheap
right now; its enterprise value is 15 times 2014 free cash flow, near five-
year lows. But splitting up would not help fix the challenges, or the
valuation, of either the chipset or the licensing business. In times of
trial, Qualcomm's businesses may in fact be better together. |
|
