Filing Flows › Companies › Qualcomm › Analysis traps
Qualcomm (QCOM): analysis traps
Where its figures could mislead a reader, and what to check before taking them at face value · Data: Q4 FY26, to Sep 27, 2026, filed Nov 4, 2026; rules v1.1
Qualcomm (QCOM): 0 rules of 10 triggered on the filings to Sep 27, 2026. 2 to review; 2 with insufficient data; 2 not applicable. Each is a question to verify, with the normal explanation that would produce the same figures.
Check these first
Low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued To review · confidence medium
Net income of $13.6B is at a high against a median of $9.0B over eight years; at 12.3× the market is not pricing it as cheap, but a multiple on this year's profit still understates the mid-cycle one (18.6×).
A precise DCF value = the true value To review · confidence high
The DCF's point value is 72.39 a share (price 156.75); 66% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving revenue growth (each year) by ±5 pts alone takes it from 57.94 to 89.77; across every method the research ran the range is -94 to 541. The value is a range; the decimals are not information.
Innocent reading: A stable, mature business with a narrow range of outcomes, where the point value is a fair summary.
Every rule
A01 FCF growth = the business improved Not triggered confidence high
Free cash flow did not rise ($12.8B → $8.7B): the trap does not arise.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year before | FY25 |
| Fiscal year | FY26 |
| Operating cash flow, year before | $14.0B |
| Operating cash flow | $11.1B |
| Capex, year before | $1.2B |
| Capex | $2.5B |
| Free cash flow, year before | $12.8B |
| Free cash flow | $8.7B |
| Change in FCF | −$4.2B |
| Change in capex | $1.3B |
| Working capital: change in its cash contribution | −$1.2B |
FCF = operating cash flow − cash capex; ΔFCF = ΔOCF − ΔCapEx; the working-capital part is the change in the cash-bridge items (receivables, inventory, payables, accruals), with the sign of the cash flow statement
Source: FY26 (cash flow statement, fiscal year) · FY25 (cash flow statement, fiscal year before)
A07 Stock compensation added back = no economic cost Not triggered confidence high
Stock compensation is 8.0% of revenue, but buybacks of $7.8B covered it (2.3×) and the diluted share count fell 2.9%: the dilution has been paid for in cash.
The figures and how they are read
| Fiscal year | FY26 |
| Stock compensation | $3.5B |
| Revenue | $43.1B |
| SBC / revenue | +8.0% |
| Buybacks | $7.8B |
| Buybacks / SBC | 2.3 |
| Diluted shares, year before | 1,105.0M shares |
| Diluted shares | 1,073.0M shares |
| Diluted shares: change | -2.9% |
SBC / revenue from the cash flow statement's add-back; the diluted weighted share count year over year; buybacks from the financing section
Source: FY26 (stock compensation, buybacks and the diluted share count, fiscal year)
B02 Receivables growing = future cash is certain Insufficient data
fewer than five quarters with receivables and revenue on file (a year-over-year comparison needs five)
B08 Adjusted profit = economic profit Insufficient data
no reconciliation table read from the releases yet and fewer than three quarters with both an adjusted and a GAAP EPS
C02 Low net debt = no refinancing risk Not triggered confidence medium
$2.0B comes due within a year, 3.8× covered by cash and investments of $7.7B.
The figures and how they are read
| Cash and investments | $7.7B |
| Debt | $13.1B |
| Net debt | $5.4B |
| Due within a year | $2.0B |
| Read from | the debt maturity table |
| Free cash flow, twelve months | — |
| Cash plus free cash flow | $7.7B |
| Coverage of what is due | 3.8 |
| Due in the second year | $962M |
| Balance sheet date | 2026-09-27 |
due within a year from the maturity table (else the current portion of debt), against cash and investments plus free cash flow over the last twelve months (zero if negative); no credit lines assumed
Source: FY26 (debt maturities, cash and investments)
D03 EPS growth = profit growth Not triggered confidence high
EPS fell 23% and net income fell 25% in Q3 FY26; the share count fell 2.7%: EPS growth follows profit growth.
The figures and how they are read
| Quarter | Q3 FY26 |
| Quarter before | Q3 FY25 |
| EPS, year before | $2.43 |
| EPS | $1.87 |
| Net income, year before | $2.7B |
| Net income | $2.0B |
| Diluted shares, year before | 1,099.0M shares |
| Diluted shares | 1,069.0M shares |
| EPS growth | -22.8% |
| Net income growth | -24.9% |
| Diluted shares: change | -2.7% |
| eps from profit | -$0.60 |
| eps from share count | $0.05 |
EPS and net income against the same quarter a year earlier; the EPS bridge attributes the change to profit first, then to the share count (the order is fixed and disclosed)
Source: Q3 FY26 (net income, diluted shares, EPS) · Q3 FY25 (the same quarter a year earlier)
E02 Low P/E at a cyclical peak = undervalued To review confidence medium
Net income of $13.6B is at a high against a median of $9.0B over eight years; at 12.3× the market is not pricing it as cheap, but a multiple on this year's profit still understates the mid-cycle one (18.6×).
The figures and how they are read
| market value | $168.2B |
| net income ttm | $13.6B |
| pe ttm | 12.30 |
| net income median fy | $9.0B |
| pe mid cycle | 18.60 |
| net income peak fy | $13.6B |
| years | FY19 / 4386.0; FY20 / 5198.0; FY21 / 9043.0; FY22 / 12936.0; FY23 / 7232.0; FY24 / 10142.0; FY25 / 5541.0; FY26 / 13628.0 |
| down years in window | 2 |
P/E on the trailing twelve months' net income against the P/E on the median net income of the last eight fiscal years (a mid-cycle stand-in); 'at a peak' = this year's profit at or above 90% of the best year and at least 1.3× the median
Source: Q4 FY26 (net income, trailing twelve months)
What would show the trap does not apply
- Profit holds at this level through the next two years (the eight-year peak was a new base, not a top)
- The industry's capacity and prices stay where they are rather than reverting
Look again: next filing.
E07 A precise DCF value = the true value To review confidence high
The DCF's point value is 72.39 a share (price 156.75); 66% of it is the terminal value, a number about years no one has seen. Moving revenue growth (each year) by ±5 pts alone takes it from 57.94 to 89.77; across every method the research ran the range is -94 to 541. The value is a range; the decimals are not information.
The figures and how they are read
| dcf value | 72.39 |
| price | 156.75 |
| terminal value share | +65.6% |
| swing by input | Revenue growth (each year) / ±5 pts / 57.94 / 89.77; Operating margin / ±3 pts / 60.5 / 84.28; WACC / ±1 pt / 64.37 / 82.54; Terminal growth / ±0.5 pt / 70.34 / 74.69 |
| range all methods | -94.03; 540.99 |
the DCF's point value against the share of it that is the terminal value and the value at each input moved by one step (growth ±5 pts, WACC ±1 pt, margin ±3 pts …); the range across every method the research ran
Source: 2026-11-08 (valuation research)
What would explain it innocently
- A stable, mature business with a narrow range of outcomes, where the point value is a fair summary
- The inputs that matter most are themselves well known (a regulated return, a long contract)
What to look for in the filing
- Which input you believe differs from the research's and why
- What the price implies for growth (the reverse DCF on the fair-value page)
What would show the trap does not apply
- The DCF's value is robust to the terminal growth and discount rate (the range's low end is still above the price)
- The company's cash flows over the next three years track the DCF's early years
Look again: next filing.
J06 A bank's low P/E and high profit = safe Not applicable
not a bank
J08 A REIT's low net income = the dividend is unsafe Not applicable
not a REIT
What the statuses mean
Triggered: the filings show the pattern; read the normal explanations and the missing evidence before concluding anything. To review: one quarter or a weak signal; a reader's judgement, not a pattern. Not triggered: the pattern is absent on these figures. Insufficient data: the filings read so far do not hold what the rule needs; this is not a clean bill. Not applicable: the rule is not meant for this kind of company (a bank's working capital, a loss-making quarter's EPS growth). Out of date: the latest filing is more than fifteen months old.
Severity is what the pattern could mean for cash, value or solvency; confidence is how reliable the inputs and the reading are. The two are kept apart.
Record a view
A reader's judgement, grounds, what would change it and the next review; kept in the browser (needs JavaScript).
Every rule and the companies it triggers on → Qualcomm: cash flow → Earnings quality score →
Each rule reads the company's own filings by a fixed formula and says what would explain the same figures innocently. A triggered rule is a question to verify, not a finding of manipulation, and not a view on the stock. Missing data is shown as missing, never as clear. Not investment advice.