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.
Zacks Research Weighs in on InterDigital, Inc.'s Q2 2023 Earnings (NASDAQ:IDCC)
MON., MARCH 20, 2023
InterDigital, Inc. (NASDAQ:IDCC - Get Rating) - Equities researchers at Zacks Research cut their Q2 2023 EPS estimates for InterDigital in a report released on Wednesday, March 15th. Zacks Research analyst S. Bose now anticipates that the Wireless communications provider will post earnings of $0.41 per share for the quarter, down from their prior estimate of $0.54. The consensus estimate for InterDigital's current full-year earnings is $2.54 per share. Zacks Research also issued estimates for InterDigital's Q4 2023 earnings at $0.59 EPS, FY2023 earnings at $1.85 EPS, Q3 2024 earnings at $0.64 EPS, FY2024 earnings at $2.49 EPS and FY2025 earnings at $2.96 EPS.
InterDigital (NASDAQ:IDCC - last issued its quarterly earnings results on Wednesday, February 15th. The Wireless communications provider reported $1.08 earnings per share for the quarter, beating analysts' consensus estimates of $0.92 by $0.16. The business had revenue of $117.10 million during the quarter, compared to analyst estimates of $113.93 million. InterDigital had a net margin of 20.47% and a return on equity of 13.02%. InterDigital's revenue for the quarter was up 4.7% compared to the same quarter last year. During the same quarter last year, the business posted $0.70 earnings per share.
A number of other analysts have also commented on IDCC. StockNews.com assumed coverage on shares of InterDigital in a report on Thursday. They set a "hold" rating for the company. Jefferies Financial Group assumed coverage on shares of InterDigital in a report on Friday, December 9th. They set a "buy" rating and a $80.00 target price for the company. William Blair assumed coverage on shares of InterDigital in a report on Thursday, January 26th. They set an "outperform" rating for the company. Finally, TheStreet raised shares of InterDigital from a "c+" rating to a "b" rating in a report on Monday, January 23rd. One investment analyst has rated the stock with a sell rating, one has assigned a hold rating and two have given a buy rating to the company. According to data from MarketBeat.com, the company presently has a consensus rating of "Hold" and an average price target of $70.00.
InterDigital Price Performance
IDCC opened at $72.59 on Monday. The company has a fifty day moving average price of $69.83 and a two-hundred day moving average price of $55.87. The company has a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.83, a quick ratio of 4.96 and a current ratio of 4.96. InterDigital has a 52 week low of $40.23 and a 52 week high of $75.74. The firm has a market capitalization of $2.15 billion, a PE ratio of 23.49, a P/E/G ratio of 2.45 and a beta of 1.21.
Insider Transactions at InterDigital
In other news, insider Eeva K. Hakoranta sold 766 shares of InterDigital stock in a transaction on Thursday, February 23rd. The shares were sold at an average price of $73.05, for a total transaction of $55,956.30. Following the transaction, the insider now directly owns 20,200 shares of the company's stock, valued at $1,475,610. The sale was disclosed in a legal filing with the SEC, which is available at the SEC website. In related news, insider Eeva K. Hakoranta sold 766 shares of the business's stock in a transaction on Thursday, February 23rd. The shares were sold at an average price of $73.05, for a total value of $55,956.30. Following the sale, the insider now directly owns 20,200 shares of the company's stock, valued at approximately $1,475,610. The transaction was disclosed in a legal filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, which is available at this hyperlink. Also, CFO Richard Brezski sold 10,386 shares of the business's stock in a transaction dated Tuesday, February 28th. The stock was sold at an average price of $73.77, for a total transaction of $766,175.22. Following the transaction, the chief financial officer now owns 91,496 shares in the company, valued at $6,749,659.92. The disclosure for this sale can be found here. Insiders have sold a total of 23,023 shares of company stock valued at $1,691,327 over the last three months. 1.20% of the stock is currently owned by corporate insiders.
Institutional Inflows and Outflows
A number of institutional investors and hedge funds have recently bought and sold shares of IDCC. Huntington National Bank grew its position in shares of InterDigital by 602,700.0% during the 3rd quarter. Huntington National Bank now owns 6,028 shares of the Wireless communications provider's stock worth $244,000 after purchasing an additional 6,027 shares in the last quarter. Boston Trust Walden Corp grew its position in shares of InterDigital by 33.6% during the 3rd quarter. Boston Trust Walden Corp now owns 543,536 shares of the Wireless communications provider's stock worth $21,970,000 after purchasing an additional 136,772 shares in the last quarter. SG Americas Securities LLC grew its position in shares of InterDigital by 89.8% during the 3rd quarter. SG Americas Securities LLC now owns 22,207 shares of the Wireless communications provider's stock worth $898,000 after purchasing an additional 10,505 shares in the last quarter. AlphaCrest Capital Management LLC grew its position in shares of InterDigital by 185.8% during the 3rd quarter. AlphaCrest Capital Management LLC now owns 20,360 shares of the Wireless communications provider's stock worth $823,000 after purchasing an additional 13,236 shares in the last quarter. Finally, Lazard Asset Management LLC grew its position in shares of InterDigital by 49.0% during the 2nd quarter. Lazard Asset Management LLC now owns 1,998 shares of the Wireless communications provider's stock worth $121,000 after purchasing an additional 657 shares in the last quarter. Institutional investors and hedge funds own 83.97% of the company's stock.
About InterDigital (Get Rating)
InterDigital, Inc engages in the design and development of technologies that enable and enhance wireless communications, and capabilities. It focuses on mobile technology and devices, which includes cellular wireless technology, Internet of Things, technology, video coding & transmission, sensor and sensor fusion technology.
https://www.marketbeat.com/instant-alerts/nasdaq-idcc-analyst-earnings-estimates-2023-03-20/
InterDigital (IDCC) - Sidoti Virtual Conference Presentation
Description
InterDigital develops mobile and video technologies that are at the core of devices, networks, and services worldwide. We solve many of the industry’s most critical and complex technical challenges, inventing solutions for more efficient broadband networks, better video delivery, and richer multimedia experiences years ahead of market deployment. InterDigital has licenses and strategic relationships with many of the world’s leading technology companies. Founded in 1972, InterDigital is listed on NASDAQ, and is included in the S&P SmallCap 600.
Time: Mar 22, 2023 03:15 PM in Eastern Time (US and Canada)
https://sidoti.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_N450qSSSRRO6RlIJowQwaw
How thrilled was Cohen when he dumped his stock grants?
COHEN ERIC Officer 03/15/2023 Acquisition (Non Open Market) Direct 22,822 $0.00 67,120
COHEN ERIC Officer 03/15/2023 Disposition (Non Open Market) Direct 17,369 $73.43 49,750
COHEN ERIC Officer 03/15/2023 Automatic Sell Direct 7,597 $72.42 42,153
https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/stocks/idcc/insider-activity
Several of the Form 4's that were posted today imply to me that management thinks our inhouse legal team did very well last week.
By the way, during the past twenty years, I can't think of any court appeal that IDCC did not win.
the legal outcomes....as always are as clear as mud...the patents involved here are a small fraction of the total portfolio......i do know that this decision moves the needle forward on infringement....and nobody in their right mind would award a rate lower than apple pays idc per unit for the whole portfolio...thank god we're not silly enough to go sit in a courtroom and watch this krap unfold...anymore!!!!
LTE thanks for the article. A link to the actual court judgement from the article is found below for anyone interested.
ENGLAND AND WALES HIGH COURT (PATENTS COURT) DECISIONS - APPROVED JUDGMENT - PUBLIC VERSION
This is why IDCC is upset. And I'm not happy either:
Mr Justice Mellor, in a significant and substantial judgment, examined and clarified the key principles applicable in global FRAND disputes as well as procedural issues which arise in such litigation.
The Court determined, among other things, the following key points:
(1) The Court set a FRAND rate under InterDigital’s portfolio of 17.5 cents per device (¶813), which was 65% lower than the rate being sought by InterDigital (¶23).
(2) The Court did so based upon a comparable licence analysis, rejecting the 20 licences relied upon by InterDigital as comparables and relying principally upon one of the seven licences relied upon by Lenovo (¶¶793-814).
(3) The Court rejected the utility of the top-down analysis put forward by InterDigital (¶¶815-885).
(4) The Court held that “by consistently seeking supra-FRAND rates, InterDigital did not act as a willing licensor” (¶928), whereas “for the most part, Lenovo did conduct themselves as a willing licensee” (¶¶931-932).
(5) The Court emphasised the need for transparency in this market: “the SEP universe would be able to converge on and agree FRAND terms very much more quickly if the basics of each SEP licence were made public (by ‘basics’ I mean the number of units covered, the royalty rates or total sum paid/payable and which standards are involved). In other words, the market for mobile telephony SEP licences would work very much more smoothly with transparency of what terms had been agreed in the past” (¶200) and this “has implications for how the SEP licensor should conduct itself as a willing licensor” (¶202).
(6) The Court decided that FRAND required Lenovo to pay royalties on sales from 2007 onwards (¶¶424-433, 450-451, 515-527, 532-537, 548, 554-555, 559-561).
https://www.blackstonechambers.com/news/interdigital-technology-corp-and-ors-v-lenovo-group-limited-and-ors/
Paullee, I disagree with your statement bout the IDCC teams. 1) Lenovo has been found to infringe multiple patents. 2) the judge set the frand rate not IDCC who is appealing the rate.
An article that estimates / guesstimates what Apple paying.
The conclusion is that it's about 57 cents per phone -
much higher than the UK judge. If so, what's wrong
with that judge?
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e2b75269-4d7a-43f8-9328-d7da9db35c5c
Lenovo is touting the decision as a substantial victory. I sure hope our attorneys do a better job in the appeal. My opinion is the decision is very dangerous for our future negotiations and renewals with our contracted companies. We need to continue to receive a fair value for our intellectual property.
Eagle
Court Awards Nearly $140M To Patent Firm Outperforming The Market
by
Anusuya Lahiri, Benzinga Editor
March 17, 2023 12:09 PM | 1 min read
U.K.'s High Court ordered Lenovo Group Ltd
LNVGF
LNVGF
to pay $138.7 million to InterDigital, Inc
IDCC
-1.29%
+ Free Alerts
in settlement of a licensing dispute.
The Court urged Lenovo to pay the penalty for a license to InterDigital's portfolio of 3G, 4G, and 5G patents and pay in full for past sales dating back to 2007.
The Court will decide whether additional interest is due on the one-time payments.
"We welcome the Court's decision as the first major SEP FRAND judgment that recognizes that a licensee should pay in full for the past infringement of standard essential patents, and we agree with the Court that this could be a powerful way of guarding against patent holdout in the future," commented Josh Schmidt, Chief Legal Officer, InterDigital.
"However, we plan to appeal, as we believe that certain aspects of the decision do not accurately reflect our licensing program."
In January, InterDigital shared winning a critical decision from a U.K. court in the company's litigation against Lenovo.
The Court upheld the lower court decision, confirming that Lenovo infringed a valid and essential InterDigital cellular patent.
In July 2021, the U.K. High Court ruled that the patent-in-suit is valid, infringed, and essential to the 4G LTE standard.
IDCC has outperformed the market year-to-date. Invesco QQQ Trust
QQQ-0.55%
ETF representative of the Nasdaq index has gained 14.04% YTD, while the IDCC shares gained 48.39% YTD.
IDCC Price Action: IDCC shares traded lower by 1.32% at $73.45 on the last check Friday.
https://www.benzinga.com/news/23/03/31397817/court-awards-nearly-140m-to-patent-firm-outperforming-the-market
750K shares will be exchanged through options tomorrow. I hope they are for long positions.
So, if you sum it up, they asked for 317 mil and received 138, which means their crack legal team is on par with their crack negotiating team. Correct me if I am wrong?
Lenovo Says UK High Court Rules In Its Favor In Ongoing Litigation With InterDigital
RTTNews
Mar. 16, 2023, 10:15 AM
(RTTNews) - PC and mobile maker Lenovo Group Ltd. (LNVGY.PK) announced Thursday that the UK High Court has ruled in Lenovo's favor in the ongoing litigation with InterDigital regarding license rates for 3G, 4G, and 5G patents.
This judgment reinforces the company's continued commitment as a willing licensee and validates the license rate Lenovo advocated for.
This is a landmark decision of a Court establishing a modern global FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-discriminatory) rate for Standard Essential Patents (SEP).
The Court's analyzed the cellular patent licensing history between InterDigital and others, supporting its determination that InterDigital's global cellular royalty rate should be $0.175 per unit.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/lenovo-says-uk-high-court-rules-in-its-favor-in-ongoing-litigation-with-interdigital-1032173180
The one thing we all learned is that a Lenovo license will be coming in the UK at least. That is after IDCC appeals the FRAND rate UK ruling.
IMO...the only thing clear in the news release from Global Newswire is the following quote.
Is Lenova granted the same rate as Apple/samsung due to discriminatory performance?
According to IDCC press release,
The Court ruled that Lenovo:
should pay a total of $138.7 million for a license to InterDigital’s portfolio of 3G, 4G and 5G patents, and
should pay in full for past sales dating back to 2007
Is the past amount not included? This is contrary to what the reuters news indicated...Am I missing something here?
<<idc offered 337myn for a six year license....which 6 years and when did they make that offer?.... and the 138myn is only through the end of the year......and lenovo will have to negotiate a new license>>
That looks to be the case that Lenovo / Motorola will need a new license
from 2024 forward. But it also looks to be the case that the new license
will required to be at 17.5 cents per phone if the ruling isn't overturned.
Also, don't forget, that IDCC might believe that there's also some non-
standards essential patents that the infringers might be using.
That's important question to ask because I remember that's what
Qualcomm said in their case against Apple.
I don't think L=ovo has ever had a license, just free range Infringers, until now--
accelerated earnings, we are growing at 40% CAR-----we are not getting the premium we deserve
idc offered 337myn for a six year license....which 6 years and when did they make that offer?.... and the 138myn is only through the end of the year......and lenovo will have to negotiate a new license
So Judge Nellie determined that Lenovo should pay 138.7 million for past and future sales from 2007 thru 2023. That is a total of 17 years and comes to approximately 8.1558 million a year.
This decision definitely warrants appeal.
Reminds me of a rate set by the Chinese court in a case some years ago. In my opinion this is a farce.
LONDON (Reuters) - China's Lenovo Group Ltd must pay U.S. technology firm InterDigital Inc $138.7 million for a licence for its portfolio of telecommunications patents, London's High Court ruled on Thursday in the latest round of a long-running dispute.
InterDigital brought the lawsuit against Lenovo in 2019 over the terms on which Lenovo should take a licence of its patents which are essential to 3G, 4G and 5G standards.
The litigation, which has so far featured five separate trials, centres on the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms of a licence for InterDigital's patents.
Judge James Mellor said in a written ruling on Thursday that previous offers made by both Lenovo and InterDigital – which had offered $337 million for a six-year licence – were not made on FRAND terms.
He said Lenovo should pay a $138.7 million "lump sum" to cover past and future sales of mobile devices from 2007 until the end of 2023.
Lenovo described the ruling as "a major win for the technology industry and the customers we serve".
John Mulgrew, Lenovo's chief intellectual property officer, said in a statement the decision "reinforces FRAND's critical role in facilitating transparent and equitable licensing practices for standardized technologies".
InterDigital's Chief Legal Officer Josh Schmidt welcomed what he said was the ruling's recognition that "a licensee should pay in full for the past infringement of standard essential patents".
However, he said in a statement: "We plan to appeal, as we believe that certain aspects of the decision do not accurately reflect our licensing program."
London-based patent lawyer Mark Marfe, who was not involved in the case, said the decision reinforced the High Court's willingness to grant a global FRAND licence.
China is the only other jurisdiction where courts have set global FRAND rates for so-called standard essential patents.
Marfe added that "all eyes will be on the Unified Patent Court", a common patent court for European Union member states which opens in June, to see whether it takes a similar approach.
(Reporting by Sam Tobin; Editing by Mark Potter)
thanks for the additional info. Just go to show you how bad IDCC wrote their statement.
But still no details on legal fees and interest, tick tock
my guess if IDCC was asking for 337mil they won't get legal fees.
Judge James Mellor said in a written ruling on Thursday that previous offers made by both Lenovo and InterDigital – which had offered $337 million for a six-year licence – were not made on FRAND terms.
He said Lenovo should pay a $138.7 million "lump sum" to cover past and future sales of mobile devices from 2007 until the end of 2023.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/lenovo-must-pay-1387-mln-interdigital-patents-london-court-2023-03-16/
vegas options, good point.
The interest alone could be $50 million going back to 2007. That's
assuming a 2.5% rate cumulatively. It's just a back of the envelope
number and I'm trying (just guessing) to use a conservative interest
rate number in what was a low interest rate environment since 2008
forward. It wasn't until recently that inflation and interest rates started going
back up.
I didn't say that IDCC was happy.
The PR is also confusing - it could have been more clear.
I could be wrong, but it does look like the past sales going
back to 2007 is included in the total - that's the way that I'm
reading it. And it makes sense assuming the 17.5 cents
per phone based on Lenovo's / Motorola's annual shipments
that I posted in my prior post.
I think that interest should be added - it almost always is:
<<The Court ruled that Lenovo should pay a total of $138.7 million for a license to InterDigital’s portfolio of 3G, 4G and 5G patents, and should pay in full for past sales dating back to 2007. The Court will decide in due course whether additional interest is due on the past payments.>>
https://ir.interdigital.com/news-events/press-releases/news-details/2023/UK-court-issues-decision-in-InterDigitals-FRAND-licensing-case-against-Lenovo/default.aspx
How many phones does Motorola sell per year?
Following a slight decrease in smartphone unit shipments between 2019 and 2020, Motorola shipped nearly 51 million smartphone units across the globe in 2021, representing a growth of around 18 million units compared to 2020, when it shipped around 33 million units worldwide.Oct 18, 2022
https://tinyurl.com/3yvmn6fu
sounds like IDCC was asking for 100's of millions, so why was IDCC happy?
and is the 138 a lump sum for everything, and nothing going forward ?
"InterDigital, a U.S. company, has been holding out for a "discriminatory premium" compared with the rates paid by other manufacturers — "to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars and to which it is not entitled," Lenovo said in court documents"
Read more at: https://www.law360.com/articles/1455185/lenovo-makes-80m-play-to-resolve-interdigital-ip-dispute?copied=1
Lenovo / Motorola offered InterDigital $80 million last year.
So at least this ruling is higher than that. But it looks like IDCC
isn't happy with the willing licensee aspect of the ruling as well
as the 17.5 cents per phone.
And important question is how does the 17.5 cents reflect on their
other licenses like Apple and the Samsung arbitration. It's
important for IDCC to hit their revenue targets.
Lenovo Makes $80M Play To Resolve InterDigital IP Dispute
https://www.law360.com/articles/1455185/lenovo-makes-80m-play-to-resolve-interdigital-ip-dispute
So at a rate of .175 per unit, what might we expect in income from Lenova going forward? How many units do they sell per year?
Thanks Vegas and Gamco...I was not aware of that part of the story.
UK High Court recognizes Lenovo as willing licensee in landmark FRAND case
Thu, March 16, 2023 at 9:48 AM EDT
LONDON, March 16, 2023--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Lenovo today announced that the UK High Court has ruled in Lenovo’s favor in the ongoing litigation with InterDigital regarding license rates for 3G, 4G, and 5G patents. This judgement reinforces the company’s continued commitment as a willing licensee and validates the license rate Lenovo advocated for.
This is a landmark decision of a Court establishing a modern global FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-discriminatory) rate for Standard Essential Patents (SEP).
Lenovo’s John Mulgrew, Vice President, Deputy General Counsel & Chief Intellectual Property Officer, welcomes the decision as follows:
"Lenovo thanks the Court for its judgment in InterDigital v. Lenovo. We see this as a major win for the technology industry and the customers we serve, as it underscores both the importance of fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms for patent licensing and the requirement of transparency by patent holders engaged in licensing practices.
We are grateful for the Court’s careful and objective analysis of the cellular patent licensing history between InterDigital and others, supporting its determination that InterDigital’s global cellular royalty rate should be $0.175 per unit. With this judgment, the Court has confirmed that Lenovo is, and always has been, a willing licensee – even in the face of InterDigital’s supra-FRAND offers and behavior as an unwilling licensor.
In the meantime, we are pleased that this judgment reinforces FRAND’s critical role in facilitating transparent and equitable licensing practices for standardized technologies – enabling the proliferation of affordable innovation to customers around the world."
The full judgement will be available on the National Archive website later today under case number is HP-2019-000032.
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230316005489/en/
Contacts
Stuart Gill
sgill@lenovo.com
The way I read it is, all they are getting is 138 mil for infringement, not clear whether there is a thru date (like 12/31/22) or is it one lump payment for everything? Motorola is not part of the case and there is no action against them.
It's a British court so do we get legal fees also ?? And then he has to rule on back interest, too.
Remember Lenova offered 100 mil a year ago.
IDCC is going to appeal, so do we get anything before the appeals plays out? Will Lenova appeal. More questions than answers.
Could be one of the worst PR's I have ever seen. And Mr. Market yawns
Monterey2000, Court ruled Lenovo is a willing licensee...so no penalties.
Looks like IDCC wants more and plans to appeal...
Monterey2000, I do not know if Lenovo bought the liabilities or not.
So does Motorola pay in full for past sales dating back to 2007?
I believe that the $138.7 is before interest, penalties, lawyers fees, etc. Lenovo bought Motorola phones at the end of 2014.
So is the 138.7 just for this year, or is it a paid-up license going forward?
Let's keep an eye out for any analyst comments
I'm dreaming of $4. Been waiting a pretty, pretty, pretty long time.
How about a dollar/share divvy?
And a special dividend would be nice. Buh-bye shorts, lower litigation costs going forward, WOOHOO!
Sounds good to me....that's a very explicit ruling!!!!.
UK court issues decision in InterDigital's FRAND licensing case against Lenovo
7:30 am ET March 16, 2023 (Globe Newswire) Print
GlobeNewswireMarch 16, 2023
WILMINGTON, Del., March 16, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- InterDigital, Inc. (Nasdaq: IDCC), a mobile and video technology research and development company, today announced that the UK's High Court handed down its judgment in the company's licensing dispute with Lenovo.
The Court ruled that Lenovo should pay a total of $138.7 million for a license to InterDigital's portfolio of 3G, 4G and 5G patents, and should pay in full for past sales dating back to 2007. The Court will decide in due course whether additional interest is due on the past payments.
"We welcome the Court's decision as the first major SEP FRAND judgment that recognizes that a licensee should pay in full for the past infringement of standard essential patents and we agree with the Court that this could be a powerful way of guarding against patent holdout in the future," commented Josh Schmidt, Chief Legal Officer, InterDigital. "However, we plan to appeal, as we believe that certain aspects of the decision do not accurately reflect our licensing program."
EDIT - I see you're already aware of this
https://www.reddit.com/r/LWLG/comments/11rca6y/my_ofc_experience/
Yes, he apparently did want to update that for you as he felt that his statement was misinterpreted, but is locked into one post per day limbo.
He replied to me earlier on IHUB that many were in the room, but the conversation was between the four people. I notice my posts have been removed as well as KCC's.
Loop, Reddit is temporarily offline - KCCO stated that in this case proto did not exaggerate and that Lebby did indeed silence the room.
Followers
|
878
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
432962
|
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: |