Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I am still puzzled by the urgency to accelerate buyback...IMO
IMO,,not too many retail investors here anymore. most have moved on..
just printed 80, so my take , I know this company a long time, like many here , looking at 1.7 b in back log per the 10Q, its time they ramp up a bigger dividend--
I bought apple 2006 , yr before Jobs , iphoned the world---not many held apple through the 90's---and most of 2000's, very difficult--we are not an apple, but we are a 4x or more from here , growth will prove it
I SEE A SMILE ON THE CLOUDS THAT RANGER IS RIDING ! ! !
BOY, I MISS YOUR POSTS RANGER. GOD BLESS.
Damn, I put in a sell for 100 shares at $79.95 just for the hell of it. I didn’t think it would go, but it just did.
Just Checked
No ML report has been issued since 2/15/23
they mentioned 600ml in reoccuring rev, is that fy2023 or 24, hoping for the 800mil range---so we are selling PE wise x out the catch ups--at a pretty low 20's?----for this growth we should get a 30x or more --if our Ai, iOt gets traction , the herd should run on it and so 100x PE
Maybe we can add to the short pain by putting our shares up for sale at $100, good until cancelled.
If they keep it up I might even throw them a couple shares.
Yes, faster and faster. I am certainly enjoying this race right now.
Looks like weve got the shorts on the run
Bank of America should reconsider their coverage for IDCC. Maybe they should just drop coverage or upgrade to a strong buy with a target price that would make Mickey Britt proud! JMHO
Prior to yesterday's earnings release I was still pondering the real intentions of the stock buy back. First, I thought it was in preparation for a company buyout, then after almost 30 years in this stock, it probably would have happened by now so its not likely to happen in the future. Second thought was to take the company private but with the high institutional ownership, I do not think this is a likely scenario. Third and foremost is the company is planning to buy down the outstanding shares to a desired amount, then stop the buy back, and then focus more on dividend payout to shareholders making this stock more attractive as a dividend stock. This third scenario seems to be more supported by orientbull's post about his takeaways from yesterday's earnings call.
3) commitment to accelerate buyback and dividends due to licensing momentum
Orientbull post
4 days ago....im sure there were many folks who were lamenting not having sold some or all into the tender offer....and that idc would return to its malaise in the clutches of the shorts......here is your opportunity!!!
Ooh..ooh
..he must feel so hurt...let's all take a knee to acknowledge his pain....and then do the twist ..and it goes like this....and around around we go again...up and down we go again!!!
teecee56, yes the B of A analyst did ask a few questions. He was almost crying that you did not tell me. They said we released the information. But you did not tell me....
Vegas....and so here we are...let the fun begin!!!!
So am I to think...folks is getting the point...after they talked it over??
couple of points from the call this morning:
1) high court hearing this week regarding interest, cost and permission to appeal. Waiting for decision to take the next step.
2) fast track oppo in UK court and the court is currently focusing on payment amounts.
3) commitment to accelerate buyback and dividends due to licensing momentum
4) the new board member with his previous experience at Tivo and Experi, if elected, will help penetration to the video area.
5) Cash balance $950 as of March31. Expect additional 1.4 billion cash receipts under the current agreements.
6) expect strong 2Q quarter. will continue to purchase shares with remaining 177m
They didn’t do this before
They
Have always been super conservative
And only recognized when contract signed cash in bank
wow....just tuned in....did the b of a analyst say something on the call?....all i know is....idc has had many opportunities to "jump the gun" on earnings in the past....and theyve never taken the bait....im pretty confident that if they reported it....its a done deal...it makes no sense to go out on the limb....they have accountants and lawyers that have to sign off on this kind of stuff...their behavior with the tender offer....probably could have predicted something like this.....full steam ahead!!!!
yep, accounting smoke and mirrors
They can recognize revenue if certain conditions are met. It takes delivery of the product ( in this case companies using the patents). Collection must be reasonably assured. The revenue can reasonably be measured ( I believe they stated at least for Samsung they were using a conservative number. I assume they believe Lenovo will pay at least the judgment amount.
I think it more accurately shows the revenue matching to periods than getting lump sums for past sales and recognizing it then (which in those cases, it was when it was reasonably assured).
accounting smoke and mirrors
How did they book revenue without finality for those two cases?
The BOA "Analyst / Short" should short his own employer!
Tomcat
From the conference call
1. they won't take calls from shareholders
2. They are not yet receiving any cash from Lenova and Samsung
Bank of America analyst is crying....
scooby5, the first 12,000 shares the ask did not fall below $70.5. It was the market maker filling in. He probably is looking to pick up some cheaper shares. If the company continues to buy back $25M of shares on the open market per month he is going to need them.
How can we possibly be trading in the $67.00 range?
probably in the deferred revenue , or backlog since we are collecting royalties---no products
IDCC still has $40M to recognize from the Lenovo decision, More if the appeal is successful, They bought about 340,000 shares in April and have about $175M + left in the buyback. Lookout shorts. They made about $13 M in interest.
Board goes quiet on a 3.58 profit qtr
note the balance sheet 378mil in revenue current and long term differed revenue ,
InterDigital Announces Financial Results for First Quarter 2023
Company Release - 5/4/2023
Samsung arbitration agreement and Lenovo judgment drive total revenue to over $200 million; record return of capital to shareholders
WILMINGTON, Del., May 04, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile and video technology research and development company, today announced results for the quarter ended March 31, 2023.
"In the first quarter, we continued to make strong progress in executing against our long-term goals,” commented Liren Chen, President and CEO, InterDigital. “The recent Lenovo judgment, along with our Samsung arbitration agreement and the 2022 Apple renewal, drove exceptional financial results in first quarter 2023 and provide a strong recurring revenue base well into the future."
First Quarter 2023 Financial Highlights, as compared to First Quarter 2022:
GAAP
Total revenue was $202.4 million and increased 100%. The increase was driven by the recent Lenovo judgment.
Recurring revenue was $101.6 million and increased 2%.
Operating expenses were $83.1 million and increased 17%. The increase was driven by $8.2 million of one-time items.
Net income1 was $105.3 million and increased 485%.
Diluted earnings per share was $3.58 and increased 517%.
The company completed its modified Dutch auction tender offer in which it repurchased 2.7 million shares, for an aggregate cost of $199.9 million, excluding fees, expenses and excise tax. The company repurchased $24.7 million, or 0.3 million shares, during the period April 1, 2023 through April 30, 2023.
Non-GAAP
Adjusted EBITDA2 was $154.8 million and increased 179%.
Adjusted EBITDA margin2 was 76% up from 55%.
Non-GAAP net income3 was $123.6 million and increased 301%.
Non-GAAP diluted earnings per share3 was $4.21 and increased 325%.
Near Term Outlook
The table below presents guidance of the Company's expectations for second quarter 2023. The revenue range covers both existing licenses and license agreements that we currently expect to be executed in second quarter 2023.
Q2 2023
Revenue $100M - $104M
Operating expenses $78M - $81M
Net income 1 $16.4M - $19.1M
Adjusted EBITDA 2 $50.2M- $52.9M
Diluted earnings per share $0.60 - $0.70
Non-GAAP diluted earnings per share 3 $1.19 - $1.29
Weighted-average diluted shares (a) 27.3M
(a) Based on share repurchases through April 30, 2023, excluding any additional repurchases that may occur during the remainder of second quarter 2023.
Conference Call Information
InterDigital will host a conference call on Thursday, May 4, 2023 at 10:00 a.m. ET to discuss its first quarter 2023 financial performance and other company matters.
For a live Internet webcast of the conference call, visit www.interdigital.com and click on the “Webcast” link on the Investors page. The company encourages participants to take advantage of the Internet option.
For telephone access to the conference call, visit www.interdigital.com and click on the “Dial In Registration” link on the Investors page. Registration is necessary to obtain a dial in phone number and PIN to join.
An Internet replay of the conference call will be available on InterDigital’s website under Events in the Investors section. The replay will be available for one year.
Questions Abound On EU Plan For New Essential Patent Rules
By Ryan Davis · (May 1, 2023, 10:35 PM EDT)
The European Union's call to create a new body to set royalty rates for standard-essential patents before lawsuits could be filed has drawn a skeptical response, with experts questioning how the plan would work and whether it would achieve its goal of streamlining disputes.
The European Commission released its proposal on Thursday, saying the move is aimed at bringing more transparency and predictability to a complex area of the law that has led to heated disputes and litigation.
When patents must be used in a product in order for it to operate on industry standards like Wi-Fi and 5G, the patent owner pledges to license them on terms that are fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory, or FRAND. However, what constitutes such a rate often spurs legal clashes, and the EU proposal could reshape them in unpredictable ways.
Tom Cotter, a professor at University of Minnesota Law School, said that since rates are now set through litigation in courts around the world, which can lead to inconsistent results and forum shopping, "there is certainly is a lot of discussion around the world about the need to come up with a better, more efficient system for determining FRAND royalties."
"There's a lot to be applauded in trying to do that," he said. "But I'm not sure that this particular proposal is going to go forward as is because of the many objections that people have raised to it."
The European Commission called for a new "competence center" to be established within the European Union Intellectual Property Office, or EUIPO, which would create a central registry of standard-essential patents in force in the EU and conduct checks of whether the patents are in fact essential.
The proposal also calls for the center to operate a system to set a global FRAND rate for the patents when the parties cannot agree, with such a determination becoming a requirement before litigation could be filed in the EU. The commission said the nonbinding rate would be set within nine months, and would "limit the duration of otherwise protracted licensing negotiations."
The many questions spurred by the idea of creating an entirely new framework for standard-essential patents disputes have focused on the role of the EUIPO, whether the new body could meet the task being set out for it, and what would happen once a rate was set.
The EUIPO currently only registers trademarks and designs and has no involvement in patents, so its central position in the process is puzzling to many observers.
Marianne Schaffner of Reed Smith LLP's Paris office said that she found the proposal "quite concerning" since the key role is given to "an office which has no competence in patent law."
Moreover, she said that requiring patent owners to register their patents with the new body, and get determinations on whether they are essential and what a FRAND rate would be before litigation could begin, "adds so much complexity, and it slows down so much the possibility of having a decision from a court, that it's not business-minded to me."
While the proposal envisions the new body coming up with a FRAND determination within nine months, "I think that's very ambitious," said Andrew Sharples of the law firm EIP's London office. "To do a meaningful analysis in that time is going to be difficult, I think."
When the new body does set a FRAND rate, the fact that it would not be binding raises questions about what the parties are supposed to do with that information, attorneys said.
The commission "appears to have realized that the nonbinding nature just facilitates more delay," Sharples said. As a result, he noted that the proposal includes language stating that if one party commits to abide by the determination, it can terminate the process and file suit, putting pressure on the other side.
"They're trying to put in place incentives for parties to actually abide by their ruling, but query whether people will," he said, especially since there's no way of knowing at this stage what kind of rates the new body will set.
The EU aim for the proposal appears to be to "reduce litigation by giving the parties some idea of what a FRAND rate would be," said Amol Parikh of McDermott Will & Emery LLP. "But it's a nonbinding rate, so I'm curious to see if the courts will go through a similar analysis and come up with a similar rate."
In addition, Parikh noted that much about the proposed new process remains unclear, including who would be hired by the EUIPO to make the determinations, what experience they will have and what types of decisions they might make.
"Those are the types of questions that stakeholders are going to have to determine whether the regulations are workable in practice," he said.
Brian Pomper, executive director of the Innovation Alliance, whose members include owners of standard-essential patents like Qualcomm and InterDigital, said that a new body to determine licensing rates is "really going to hurt the technology developers."
When companies create inventions that are essential to industry standards, then are told, "'you're not going to be able to license this on the open market, you are going to have to take the price that we are going to be willing to allow you to charge,' that's a not a recipe for technological success," said Pomper, a partner at Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.
He said the proposal appears driven by the concerns of companies like automakers that implement standards in their products and want to pay lower prices to license patents. "I can tell you ... it's not the patent creators and innovator companies that are going to the EU and saying, 'You need to set up a system to set prices in our marketplace,'" Pomper said.
In contrast, the proposal was welcomed by Alex Moss, executive director of the Public Interest Patent Law Institute, a group that says it's dedicated to ensuring that the patent system promotes access to technology for the public's benefit.
The proposed new system would provide more transparency about standard-essential licensing information, which is now largely confidential and can't be accessed by anyone other than patent owners except through litigation, she said.
"So right now, they have an enormous information advantage and that's really how this changes the game," Moss said. "The value of your patent shouldn't reflect an information asymmetry."
In addition, she noted that standard-essential patent litigation is extremely expensive, so the possibility that the new body could reduce disputes would free up money to use for salaries or research and development, to the benefit of both sides.
Others said if the system were to be adopted, it's not clear how it could impact the behavior of patent owners and potential licensees who implement standards in their products.
"It might not have the desired effect. It might simply result in either implementers or owners going to other countries to try to get determinations," rather than dealing with the framework in the EU, said Cotter of the University of Minnesota Law School.
Likewise, Reed Smith's Schaffner described the proposal as "a gift that the EU commission is making to the U.K." Since the courts in that country have said they can make FRAND determinations without all the steps being contemplated in Europe, the U.K. would likely become a more appealing litigation venue if the policy took effect, she said.
For now, it's far from certain that the European Commission's proposal will become a reality. It must be approved by the EU countries and the European Parliament to take effect and will likely face fierce lobbying. "If this is ever implemented, I imagine it's going to look much different than the proposal," said Parikh of McDermott.
"There's a lot of uncertainty and at least from many quarters, I think, some degree of unhappiness with the current proposals," Cotter said. "So that makes me at least somewhat skeptical that it is going to be adopted in its present format."
The site Fintel has institutional ownership at 28.8M shares aggregate total at 106%.
vegas....i hear you....they are playing russian roulette....but so far it hasnt hurt them on the new shares shorted into tender....they had 4myn short...now 3myn...thats still a lot for 27myn outstanding
Teecee56, A short has to buy the shares ultimately from a long. At that moment the long determines the price. Until then a short can pay the rental fees but unless it is a long that sells it just continues as a new short. When you have 27M shares and the threat of $200M Dutch Auction or buyback it takes a miracle for a short not to get trapped.
it would for your shares....the main impediment is that institutions own the vast majority of the shares....and lending is a source of incremental return for them...so they do it freely
Does placing a "Good 'Til Cancelled" way out of the money Sell order cut down on shares available to the shorts?
i agree...they are susceptible to squeezes on unexpected good news....but right now ...they are laying on the stock like a seal on the rocks.....and they usually win on low volume slogs....i understand it ....and accept it....ive been here a long time...and have seen a lot.....
teecee56, those short shares are not free. Those 3 M shares become painful and subject to margin calls when the stock goes up. We get news next week and then again 4 weeks later.
vegas....there are also almost 3myn shares that are being provided by the shorts...which the institutions freely lend them shares to do so....i know its not part of the float...but they are there.....and the shorts always have outsized short term influence when they are active
Followers
|
879
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
1
|
Posts (Total)
|
432755
|
Created
|
01/05/02
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
The principle objective of the iHub message boards is to maintain a high signal-to-noise ratio while encouraging the exchange of all points of view. Moderators are an important part of making our message boards beneficial to all participants and readers. Moderating a stock-specific board, particularly those which are controversial due to many divergent perspectives or newsworthy events, can be a challenging and time consuming role. The time and effort expended by our Members who volunteer their time to fulfill this valuable role is greatly appreciated and our Moderators should be treated with the respect they deserve for donating their time and efforts to the collective benefit of our community. Company-specific boards are the lifeblood of iHub. The Moderators' role is simple to define for company-specific boards:
To promote the civil exchange of on-topic dialog that complies with the Investors Hub Terms of Service. |
It is no accident that neither the above definition nor the Terms of Service makes mention of investment sentiment, shareholder interests, or considerations such as "the good of the company." That is because the TOS are blind to investment sentiment. In order to be a successful Moderator and conduct a board within the scope of iHub's TOS, it is critical that Moderators distinguish their role and privileges as Moderator from their role and privileges as a posting Member. That is often easier said than done, particularly on active boards with both the typical and atypical controversy.
If a post does not fit into any of these categories the post must not be removed.
Some posts fall into a "gray" area and are borderline depending upon the way they are read. As inclusion is favored over exclusion, please err or the side of not removing posts if they are not clear violations. Please use the "Report TOS Violation" button at the bottom of the post with your comments if the post is not egregious in nature and Site Admins will review the message.
Bottom line: Please use your best judgment in removing posts based on the above guidelines and let us know if you have any questions or need any help. And keep in mind that post removal and non-removal have to be given the same emphasis. It is not permissible, for example, to remove a post that calls someone a "pumper" while not also removing a post that calls someone a "basher". Investor sentiment, including your own, can NOT be part of the removal/non-removal decision.
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |