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.
The simplest way to understand it is the bond conversions are conversion price (which goes to cash on conversion) + hedge ( whatever the stock price is on the day of conversion minus conversion price ) . Then you get $109.43 times the number of warrants exercised. That is how you get about $110 per share.
jealmc79, I meant to say 2022 to date. The money comes from 1.6M warrants plus the hedge money. So you are effectively getting about $110 per share.
Amidst all the discussion about the convertible notes and the possible dilution, I have one thought/question about the objective to the stock buyback and the conversion of the notes to shares of stock in 2024 and 2027. Just FYI...I have no accounting background.
At the conclusion, IMO and correct me in how I am wrong, as of the September 30, 2023 valuation, IDCC will have added over $675 million in cash to the balance sheet according to the total Fair Value amount for both convertible notes. IDCC will have over "1 billion" in cash. A strong cash position along with good financial fundamentals (revenue, profit, and cash flow) should make IDCC a solid investment and even stronger potential for a buyout, i.e. Broadcomm (AVGO) also sells and/or licenses WiFi, HEVC, and wireless technologies that would potentially be a good fit with Broadcomm's target market in these areas, or maybe Apple, or maybe just take IDCC private when one thinks about the increased revenue possibilities from video streaming. Are we making a possible mountain out of just a possible mole hill in terms of dilution? JMHO.
Form 10-Q For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2023 See Page 18
jealmc79, IDCC started 2023 with 30.7M shares as of November 1 the share count was down to 25.4M. They bought 2.7M+ at $73 in the Dutch Auction. The 5.3M shares that they bought most were bought below $90. If all the 2024 warrants are exercised and include the hedge money IDCC will receive about $285M. They will have to issue about 3.8M shares. Do you now understand why they increased the buyback to $300M and continue to buy?
The shorts keep averaging down on their positions.
So, at what point does this get to become a crisis?
Tomcat
All,
If earnings and fundamentals continue to improve, and the word gets out about IDCC being a stock of the future, etc. then the buying and investing interest may outrun any bond conversion dilution, and the stock may go higher. Perhaps significantly higher.
Cramer is right - IDCC is undervalued! Its current P.E. of 15 is way below the NASDAQ P.E. of 26.
To be valued at the average NASDAQ P.E., IDCC should be selling for $188 per share!
IMHO - Tomcat
As of 12/15/2023 300,000+ increase in the short interest:
12/15/2023 4,058,298
11/30/2023 3,747,444
11/15/2023 3,377,981
10/31/2023 2,985,603
10/13/2023 3,217,855
09/29/2023 3,198,853
09/15/2023 3,093,531
FWIW
In Part I of our year end summary of key developments regarding patents subject to a commitment to license on a Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) or Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) basis, we looked at various developments involving patent pools and reviewed some interesting damages awards and interlocutory decisions. In this installment, we consider a pair of antitrust cases dismissed in 2023 and explore what may come next on the policy front.
Dismissed Suits
u-blox v. IDCC
Following on a case between the same parties in 2019, which featured an intervention by the U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust division and ended in settlement, u-blox once again accused InterDigital of antitrust violations in January of 2023 stemming from InterDigital’s alleged refusal to offer u-blox a new license on FRAND terms (see: u-blox AG v. Interdigital Inc., Case No. 23-cv-0002-CAB-AHG (S.D. California)). This time around the DOJ did not intervene and u-blox’s antitrust claims were dismissed with prejudice, the Order Granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss providing as follows:
“In light of recent Ninth Circuit precedent, Plaintiffs have failed to allege anticompetitive harm in violation of section 2 of the Sherman Act. See FTC v. Qualcomm Inc., 969 F.3d 974, 996 (9th Cir. 2020) (“in order to make out a § 2 violation, the anticompetitive harm identified must be to competition itself, not merely competitors”). Plaintiffs also appear to have released any antitrust claims in their 2019 Patent Licensing Agreement with Defendants. [Doc. No. 36-4]. Thus, Plaintiffs’ cause of action under section 2 of the Sherman Act is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.”
Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo also granted InterDigital’s motion to dismiss u-blox’s breach of contract claim, but with leave to amend. Following u-blox’s filing of an amended complaint on August 25, InterDigital brought another motion to dismiss. u-blox’s case was voluntarily dismissed after an Order to Show Cause indicating that the court did not believe it held subject matter jurisdiction over the case given “the only issue before this Court is a state law breach of contract claim” and there was no diversity jurisdiction. With respect to the state law claims the Order further notes that “[a]lthough the breach of contract claim concerns a patent licensing agreement, the Court is not convinced that the dispute arises from the patent laws of the United States to satisfy §1388(a).”
jealmc79, If you buy back the total of shares that convert it DOES NOT dilute. The warrants are a different issue as the company is owed $109.49 per share exercised and once again if they buy back equal number of those exercised it does not dilute. Since the bonds are hedged, the hedge pays IDCC the difference between the convert price and the price on the day they convert. (example $110-$70 or $40 per share) The above is for the 2024 bonds which can exercise after 5 more days above $103 closing.
jealmc79, how would anyone know the price to short at? Do you do it at $80, $90, $100 if you did you are getting margin calls. It makes more sense to sell the bonds as they increase as the stock goes up. The 2027 bonds are not convertible until June 2025 under certain conditions. Have you ever done it? You have to have all the cash of the current price in your account or you pay daily margin interest. I personally would not want to pay 18 months of interest. I personally believe that Goldman Sachs or their customer own all the bonds and warrants. When IDCC issued the 2027 bonds I tried to buy $5M but none were available.
“explain to me what debt IDCC has that does not go away upon conversion of the bonds”
Who said the debt doesn’t go away? If the stock price goes above $110 when converted then the conversion will cause dilution. Check page 29 of the 10q.
“Explain to me how shorting the stock increases the rate of return for the bond holders.”
Pretty much Convertible Bond 101 here. I suggest Googling it. I don’t feel like typing it out for you.
Noteworthy Wednesday Option Activity: IDCC, COOP, DKNG
December 27, 2023 — 03:24 pm EST
Written by BNK Invest for BNK Invest ->
Looking at options trading activity among components of the Russell 3000 index, there is noteworthy activity today in Interdigital Inc (Symbol: IDCC), where a total volume of 2,736 contracts has been traded thus far today, a contract volume which is representative of approximately 273,600 underlying shares (given that every 1 contract represents 100 underlying shares). That number works out to 63.1% of IDCC's average daily trading volume over the past month, of 433,535 shares. Particularly high volume was seen for the $100 strike put option expiring January 19, 2024, with 1,302 contracts trading so far today, representing approximately 130,200 underlying shares of IDCC. Below is a chart showing IDCC's trailing twelve month trading history, with the $100 strike highlighted in orange:
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/noteworthy-wednesday-option-activity:-idcc-coop-dkng
jealmc79, explain to me what debt IDCC has that does not go away upon conversion of the bonds. Explain to me how shorting the stock increases the rate of return for the bond holders. Since the bonds convert at $70 per share they currently trade at above 60% over par. Meaning a $1000 bond trades over $1600, You do realize IDCC has hedged the bonds up to $125?? Since the shares are issued from treasury and every share they buy back goes to treasury the more shares they buyback prevents dilution.
“They just keep digging the hole they will get buried in.”
That short interest could all be from the debt IDCC owes. Selling shares short is how the bond investors can increase their rate of return on that 3.5% interest they’re getting. I’m surprised that the short interest isn’t much higher with the number of shares that are attached to the bonds.
Also doesn’t make sense to me that IDCC would be buying shares now that the stock price is over the conversion price of the bonds. That would just cause more dilution with some of the bonds maturing March 1.
Short interest went from 3,377,981 on 11/15 to 3,747,444 on 11/30. They just keep digging the hole they will get buried in.
Jim Cramer Stock Portfolio: 12 Recent Additions
InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDCC)
Number of Hedge Fund Holders: 19
InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDCC) operates as a global research and development company with focus primarily on wireless, visual, and related technologies. Jim Cramer has been bullish on InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDCC), recently saying, “I’ve know these guys for a long time. They are a premier digital wireless company, and I think it’s still inexpensive. I can’t believe that it’s still at these low prices”.
At the end of the third quarter of 2023, 19 hedge funds in the database of Insider Monkey held stakes worth $188 million in InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDCC), compared to 24 in the preceding quarter worth $224 million.
In its Q3 2023 investor letter, First Pacific Advisors, an asset management firm, highlighted a few stocks and InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDCC) was one of them. Here is what the fund said:
“InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDCC) is a research and development organization that develops and acquires wireless and video patents across key technologies. The company has a history of strong financial performance, opportunistically buys back shares, and pays a modest dividend. Shares jumped earlier this year when InterDigital announced licensing renewals with Samsung, LG, and Panasonic and then reported strong fourth quarter 2022 results.
Thanks Loop, you mean more than you'll ever know to so many of us here. Your reasoning and passion kept us, who held onto their shares with both hands, faithful and humored.
Here's a December 12th article by Adam Houldsworth from IAM titled:
Ericsson and InterDigital disputes should be resolved by the UK courts, Lenovo’s IP chief argues
Though often previously seen as a boon for SEP owners, the English courts’ willingness to make global FRAND rate determinations appears to be increasingly popular with implementers.
In fact, Lenovo’s Chief Intellectual Property Officer John Mulgrew has revealed in an exclusive interview with IAM that his company has asked the High Court in London to settle ongoing worldwide licensing disputes with Ericsson and InterDigital. This is because of the way the English courts consider comparable licences and the way their decisions about injunctions are tailored specifically to SEP disputes, he explained.
“I do think the UK is an interesting place for litigation right now, because it is a court that is attempting to implement a worldwide rate-setting process that I believe is looking at trying to get a fair result,” Mulgrew commented. “I believe the UK court is a court which takes into account what is a fair licence by looking at what competitor companies pay and making a decision [based on that].”
Ericsson, as IAM has reported, has lately launched 5G SEP infringement suits against Lenovo in the US, at the District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and in Brazil. Brazilian litigation offers distinctive advantages to SEP owners seeking to “disincentivise hold-out”, Ericsson’s head of patent assertion Robert Earle told IAM recently, because the nature of pleading in the country puts judges in a position to consider and grant injunctions at an early stage.
Lenovo has also been sued recently by InterDigital, which has asserted patents relating to the AV1 and VP9 video codec standards at the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina and at the US International Trade Commission.
Lenovo seeks UK global rate determinations
Neither patent owner has asked the High Court of England and Wales to intervene in these disputes, but Lenovo has countered by making defensive or free-standing applications to the London court, asking it to set worldwide FRAND rates for the patentees’ portfolios.
In the case of Ericsson, Lenovo has sought a global FRAND determination for the company’s 5G portfolio. In the InterDigital dispute, the situation is slightly more complicated: Lenovo has asked the court for a global determination for InterDigital’s entire patent portfolio, including its VP9 and AV1 patents as well as its cellular SEPs.
The English High Court has already determined the global price Lenovo must pay for InterDigital’s cellular portfolio in a high-profile decision handed down in March of this year. But that ruling, which resulted from InterDigital’s request for a global rate determination, only covers a period up until 31 December 2023. That judgment has since been appealed by InterDigital, with a hearing set for June 2024.
In the meantime, however, Lenovo has filed its own defensive FRAND suit concerning a licence to cellular SEPs from 2024 onwards, as well as patents for other technology standards.
The right of implementers to file defensive FRAND actions in London was upheld by the High Court earlier this year in Kigen v Thales – a dispute in which GSM implementer Kigen has sought a worldwide rate determination against patentee Thales. The IP owner argued unsuccessfully that the court lacked jurisdiction to set a global rate until it had found at least one asserted SEP to be valid and infringed.
However, the right of the English courts to make a global determination in these circumstances has not yet been tested at the appellate level. And IAM understands that Lenovo’s free-standing FRAND request is being challenged in the InterDigital suit. It may also be contested in the Ericsson spat.
The first InterDigital v Lenovo global FRAND determination
Lenovo’s experiences in its first global rate-setting process with InterDigital have made it more comfortable with the English courts’ approach, Mulgrew explained. “The first time you go through it, it is a bit intimidating to say I have committed to taking a licence and that I am putting this into [the court’s] hands,” he explains. “But we have done that now, more than once. I see the outcome [of the first decision] and I think it is fair and reasonable. I don’t think Lenovo got a better deal than other licensees of InterDigital. Personally, I think we got a fair deal, similar to what other people pay. We didn’t get a huge windfall. We got fair.”
The March 2023 ruling, handed down by Mr Justice Mellor, found that Lenovo should pay $138.7 million for InterDigital’s cellular portfolio – far closer to the Chinese company’s offer of $80 million than to the plaintiff’s demand of $337 million (the mean average being $208.5 million). Mellor J’s per-unit rate of $0.175 was only slightly above Lenovo’s suggested $0.16 rate and in stark contrast to the plaintiff’s proposed figure of $0.498 per unit.
Also favourable to Lenovo, Mellor J dismissed the patentee’s proposed top-down cross-checks, rejected its InterDigital’s volume discount approach for larger implementers such as Apple and Samsung, and lamented the lack of information about previous, comparable licences made available to Lenovo prior to litigation.
Mulgrew places great emphasis on the problems he believes are caused by a lack of transparency regarding existing licences. “What sometimes happens in licensing negotiations is that there is sometimes an asymmetric amount of information. That’s the problem right now with SEP licensing,” he commented. “It is very difficult to reach an outcome unless there is an effort to create parity in information, or at least have some information flow.”
The English courts’ focus on setting a global rate in accordance with existing licences is a significant advantage, Mulgrew stated. “It is noteworthy that the licensors, who often will claim that licensees are not willing to take licences,” he stated, “are really trying to go to other jurisdictions where there is not the ability to have this transparency and the ability to have the rate determined based on fairness.”
Licensors seeking injunctions without scrutiny of comparable licences
Many licensors favour jurisdictions where they can seek injunctions without scrutiny of what they have agreed with other licensees, Mulgrew suggests. “That is a concern for me, because a good IP system is balanced and fair.”
He argued that Ericsson’s recent assertion against Lenovo falls into this category. “There are different types of licensors, and Ericsson’s assertions are in the category of licensor that seeks an injunction and then will talk about a deal later,” Mulgrew commented.
“If a licensor is truly being fair in their licensing practices, then a UK proceeding is amazing because it is a worldwide rate that gets set.” It is an efficient and reasonable way of settling a global FRAND dispute, he contended. “I think that Ericsson is still playing the game of ‘we will get an injunction and then talk about money afterwards’.”
Though he disagrees with the approach taken towards injunctions in some other jurisdictions, Mulgrew told IAM that he accepts the English High Court’s framework for issuing injunctions. The court will impose a FRAND injunction on an implementer if they fail to commit unconditionally to accepting the eventual outcome of its global licensing fee determination. A unwilling licensee may become willing at any time and have an injunction lifted, the High Court has held, if it undertakes to accept the global rate set by the English courts.
The UK’s approach is likely to attract more implementers to file suit in the future, Mulgrew believes. “[The UK process] is relatively unknown and unproven, but I think that is changing. We have seen and experienced that ourselves,” he explained. “You will see us look at this jurisdiction and this process much more readily now that we have experienced it. Ten years from now, I don’t think it will be that remarkable [for an implementer to seek a global FRAND decision from the English High Court].”
Asked by IAM if Lenovo might file requests for global rate determinations by the courts in China – the company’s home country and the only other jurisdiction where a worldwide FRAND judgment is currently available – Mulgrew answered: “I am not sure whether going to another court to ask for the same determination would necessarily expand our point. We are willing to take a licence. We want a fair process. If there is a place where that process can be fair, we will consider it. Both jurisdictions are attempting to have a fair determination of what a licence rate should be. I commend them both for doing that.”
Proposed EU regulation would be good for SEP licensing
Despite its differences with the English approach, the framework set out in the EU’s proposed SEP licensing regulation would be better than the status quo, Mulgrew stated.
“Certainty is something we value highly. An additional process that provides certainty would be welcomed by Lenovo,” he said. “It is very different [to the English approach], and there are other ways to get to what is a fair price to pay for innovation being created by companies around the world,” Mulgrew continued.
“I am very supportive of this proposal because I do think it is a way to avoid having protracted global litigation based on asymmetry of information,” he said. “If there is a mechanism for licensing with transparency and to verify non-discriminatory licensing [then that is a good thing].”
Asked if the compulsory but non-binding FRAND determination being proposed in the EU might in fact increase the amount of time required to resolve SEP licensing disputes, Mulgrew stated that he would rather the EU create a system in which the FRAND rate determination was binding. “That would be simpler,” he concluded.
Still have a few shares, but mainly just enjoying retirement going
between Oregon and Nevada.
G
Ghors, it’s been a while. Good to hear from you. Same to you. Are you still invested or just checking back?
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all.
Loop, thank you, & to you & all here, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and an even more prosperous years going forward.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year 2024 Loop!
Loop
Merry Xmas to you
I owe you more than you know and still have some shares today.
Bim524
Cookies and milk. The emoji post did not. One out as pictures.
Santa will you give us $112.00 for a Christmas present. And the cookies 🍪 and 🥛 are next to the chimney. TIA
Loop well said. And may your memories bring you joy and envelop you and yours in love and comfort.
To all happy holidays for you and your families.
Loop,
Merry Christmas & a healthy and prosperous new year to you also!
Tomcat
Thank you Santee for the kind words and the remembrances of the old Houston group. We had our good days and our bad days, but we all had some respect for others unlike today. I am trying to stay in shape to live long enough to see Pnokio get tagged for the theft of the IP of others contained in the 3.1 billion phones they sold. The only positive regarding Pnokio so far is the ability to point out to arbiters how IDCC has been treated by the founder of the standards body promising licensing to all who contributed their IP for worldwide use and connectivity. Most of us are up in years now and have seen the heartbreaking effects of dementia. I vividly remember the day my mother would not get in my car to go to lunch because she no longer knew me. The full-time nurse I hired so she could stay in her home in her nineties was devastated and crying saying how sorry she was for me and the family. It was literally the worst day I have ever had. I wish all of our group good physical and mental health for themselves and their families. I hope your family is doing well, especially those 1/8th Irish kids lol. God bless all who I have communicated with over the years and best of luck with our little flea. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all.
loop
I stand corrected it is binding arbitration and not mediation. Which means no matter the outcome the parties have agreed to accept the final decisions.
hey loop....arbitration has been bery bery good for idc over the years...mediation is just a bunch of talk around the table...ask leon....hope you are enjoying the most recent rocket ride...i know youve been here since day one...i respect evrerything youve ever done to hold us together...when there were many moments that tore us apart....god bless you..god bless the rest of the houstion 100 guys who are no longer with us...god bless mschere and emil.......god bless all my fellow idc warriors....and god bless america....merry christmas ....Santee!!!
In a just world the agreement would go back to 1995!
I find it interesting that (according to this article), the interest calculation on the amount paid by Lenovo to InterDigital covered a time period of 16 years. Lenovo bought the cellphone business from Motorola in 2014. So I assume that number of units included the phones sold by Motorola.
The wheels of justice turn ever so slow but grind ever so fine.
It is an arbitration agreement between the parties.
M3s
Mediation a lot different than arb(binding)
Based on the following IDCC may be expecting a Samsung mediation agreement about June/July 2024. Though I hope sooner.
"On January 1, 2023, InterDigital, Inc. (the 'Company') and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. ('Samsung') agreed to have a panel of arbitrators establish the royalties to be paid by Samsung for a worldwide license to certain of the Company’s patents from and after January 1, 2023, as well as any other terms to a patent license agreement on which the parties are unable to agree. The determination by the panel will be in the form of a patent license agreement and will be final, binding and non-appealable, subject to certain limited exceptions. The parties have agreed to conduct the arbitration in a diligent manner. The Company expects the arbitration to conclude within approximately 18 months.”
Judge Jose Linares has more than 40 years of experience in judicial service, private practice, and as a businessman, having owned and managed several successful retail enterprises. Over the course of his career, he has developed an exceptional reputation in the skills necessary to resolve complex disputes, relying on his extensive experience as both a judge and trial lawyer.
The Honorable Jose Linares chairs McCarter’s Alternative Dispute Resolution practice. He served as Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, having been nominated to the bench by the President and confirmed by the Senate in 2002. Prior to joining the United States District Court, he served as a superior court judge in Essex County, New Jersey. Before joining the bench, Judge Linares headed his own law firm where he litigated products and medical cases.
Judge Linares is experienced in the life sciences and financial services industries, having heard numerous patent cases during his time on the bench, many involving high-stakes disputes between generic and branded drug companies. In addition, he has presided over numerous major bankruptcy appeals, class actions, multidistrict litigations, and securities fraud cases. Since joining McCarter, Judge Linares has participated in the preparation of highly complex patent and commercial litigation cases and has supervised corporate white collar criminal cases and internal investigations.
An acknowledged thought leader, Judge Linares lectures nationally on litigation and patent cases. He has served as an adjunct professor at Seton Hall School of Law and led the New Jersey District Court’s 2017 Sentencing Symposium and the 2018 New Jersey District Court National Opioid Symposium. Judge Linares is a fellow of the American Bar Association and has been honored with several prestigious recognitions, including the New Jersey State Bar Distinguished Judicial Service Award, the James J. McLaughlin Professionalism Award presented by the New Jersey State Bar Association, and the Gerald B. O’Connor Award. He is also the recipient of several lifetime achievement awards.
Breaking ground as the first Hispanic to serve as Chief of the United States District Court of New Jersey and the first Cuban-born District Court Chief in the United States, Judge Linares champions diversity and inclusion and has helped change the face of the federal court. He is an active member of the firm and serves on McCarter’s Diversity Committee and as a member of the firm’s Social Justice Project Team. Judge Linares is also involved in numerous civic and nonprofit activities and regularly volunteers his time to various causes supporting young adults through both educational efforts and local youth sports programs.
Looks like for the new case against Lenova they are going to mediate ?
Selection of Mediator
Document: 40
Selection of Judge Jose L. Linares as mediator filed by InterDigital Madison Patent Holdings SAS, InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc., InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc., InterDigital, Inc.. (Stevens, Matthew)
dws,
I think that what we saw this AM is a sign that some IDCC shorties are really getting stressed out at this point.
IMHO - Tomcat
dws,
That is not many shares!
If the seller could realize a real market decline of that amount, The seller could make many multiples of that (377 x 10 = $3770) sacrifice with put options purchased yesterday.
IMHO - Tomcat
Yep. It was a headfake.
dws,
How many shares?
I suspect this is a scare tactic by the shorties.
There is always a big bid asked spread after hours. One can sell at the bid and produce a result like we are seeing today. The same was done yesterday, when the stock was down $5 premarket.
IMHO - Tomcat
Anybody seen any news this morning? Pre-trades down 10%.
Followers
|
880
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
1
|
Posts (Total)
|
433140
|
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: |