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.
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.
Running the risk by making it public I shall tell you my email address so I can read your thoughts away from here. I am always willing to listen and learn and defend where I think I can. I don't check it daily but will make an effort. If you would like to send me your thoughts my email address is my board name followed by yahoo.com. I would like to close by saying that if I offended you I'm sorry.
WILCO.
I am not familiar with the term representative democracy can you please be more specific as to the country you are talking about?
Just in case you ment the U.S. I have always been of the opinion that we are a representative republic.
To me this is no small issue as words have meaning and to perpetuate the word democracy when it is not entirely accurate only serves to solidify in peoples minds that we are a democracy when in fact we are not.
No, no, no, no. If anyone cares I posted my thoughts on the matter over on the SI mod thread.
I nice subtle point that was short and sweet. I envy those who can say volumes with few words and wish I could too. The founders are a good example of such people.
"Don't fall in love with the stock. It is a vehicle to make money."
Wow, those are sound words that I've never heard before. That's it I'm convinced and will now divorce myself of my childish infatuation and sell first thing......
Yeah right I am, I have a nice gain so far since I average somewhere in the low twenties. That being said I accept I could have made more of a gain had I sold a year ago and added to my TPC purchase but since I made money there too why should I quibble over what could have been when both have been good to me.
I don't worry and am happy, are you?
You will have to forgive me for I thought the "peace in our time" quote would be obvious to all. The point being that to think it is possible to appease an enemy in order to secure peace is foolish as 1939 made evident. You secure the peace by winning the war and not appeasing someone who although they professes resonableness in reality has no interest in peace. "United we stand divided we fall" has meaning for a reason and is as important as it was then as it is now. QCT and QTL by being combined allow the company to influence the future path of the technology to a degree that would not be possible to a stand alone licensing company. It is this degree of influence that our adversary abhors and to split the company only creates a false dawn, rewards bad behavior, and postpones the ultimate battle. If you still don't understand what I mean then I suggest you research the year 1938 with key words England and Germany as a starting point. After all it was only a piece of paper; the kind contractsare put on right?
With respect to NOK what is there to net out when they buy from TI? I'm not sure about EMP but would not be surprised if they were minimal and thus insignificant. This may just be a whole lot of talk about nothing at all.
Do they really net out the price of the chipset or just the royalty on the chipset?
No way! For one thing to think such a move would bring peace in our time is as foolish now as it was in 1938. Secondly, I don't care one bit what idiot financial engineers if they can be called that have to say about unlocking value due to a spin off. The only people who want to unlock value are those that want to cash out and think nothing of Q's long term viability IMO. The unlocking of value if there were any is a serious case of circular logic if there ever were any. They, being the street, and the jabbering idiots bought in to all the filth that NOK and the others have spewed to the point that they now think there is untapped value just waiting for a spinoff? Q is not some undiscovered railroad of the 1980's with gobs of land sitting on the books at darn near zero cost. If there is unrealized value it is because it once was realized but lately willingly ignored. They cannot and should not be trusted with anything having to do with respect to Q IMO due to their one sided coverage of the last two years to say the least.
I thought a few months back QCT and QTL made changes to the way they account for in house royalty transactions? If my memory is correct and this did in fact occur maybe this was done in order to eliminate the accounting need for a discount in order to compete with TXN's royalty free cross license if that was in fact the basis for them to begin with. Assuming of course that TXN was the reason what else is a company to do in order to compete with a licensee who does not pay royalties while your own chipset division does internally? Has anyone ever looked at how TXN accounts for their royalties in order to determine if the discounts were necessary from a strictly accounting point of view? If TXN does not have intra department royalties then why not argue that Q is at a cost disadvantage comparatively unless discounts are utilized? My wild guess is no Spinco-2 but rather the chipsets will all be deemed royalty free in honor or accordance with the assendence of CDMA as the dominant technology. Maybe FLO was a taste of things to come. BTW-if this was all about the accounting treatment of royalties then IMO it was a big waste of time on the part of NOK etc, unless of course some dopey regulator buys it hook line and sinker.
More like BRCM seeks to force the hand of other carriers to follow VZN.
Do you even realize what powder keg you are sitting on? There is nothing noble in being foolish IMO.
The obvious answer is no and you know it. There are however various other companies that have not only sided with Q but have also given to Republicans. To stop the analysis at Q and assume that this is all that Bush will consider is silly to say the least don't you think? Other factors Bush will consider are profits and employment. I can see any leader putting a stop to a briefing only to ask one simple question. How much is this going to cost the U.S. Treasury and what effect on employment will this have? Since politicians exist to spend money anything that takes cash away is bad and should be avoided. Then there is always the New Orleans side of things. With FEMA backing Q don't you think Bush will likewise take that in to account too? It is risky to stop the importation of chipsets and phones that first responders want when no alternative is available by the agrieved company. We will see what kind of politician Bush is with this one. By letting the ITC order stand Bush is asked to expose himself to Katrina like risks while losing cash to his Treasury for a company not particularly involved in the cellular industry. I know which way I would go if I were in his situation. This all may be pointless for if Bush were a smart politician he would let the judiciary know that given the recent Supreme Court decisions and risks to the Treasury it would be great if things continued as normal while the courts perform their duty. In this was he does not expose himself to political risks and more importantly does not cost the Treasury any money. I look for the stay.
She was covert? This is Martha Steward all over again. BTW - what is or was your opinion on MS? Libby did not leak the CIA employee's name it was Armitage but was nonetheless caught up in the investigation. Libby it seems to me was targeted bause he was the only one "out in the open". When the President comuted is sentence Libby was going to go to jail not because of the focus of the investigation but because of the investigation. Even a fair minded liberal would agree that to be sent to jail because of the course of events during the investigation is going to jail because of a weak case. What else are you going to do when you go fishing? Hey honey I'm home. Did you catch what you wanted? Not quite but we trapped this other critter and killed it instead. Well good for you it sounds like you had a good time.
This is nothing more than a rehash of way to much. If all of this were true how many Senator's could the President hope to convince war was needed? Would it be five or ten? How about sixteen? How many voted for war BTW? The Dem's want this story to be considered true by America so they can explain their votes. For all of them to be duped implies they do not vote as individuals but as a group as a whole. The group think said yes so they all did so.
Now let us assume he only "duped" twenty. To dupe twenty when everyone else is going to say yes anyway does not change the course of events one bit.
So why is all of this important if it would not have affected the course of events? Because Dem's live in their own reality. Don't forget that the reality they live in depends upon whether their guy is the one making the decisions.
The bottom line is Sadamm was a bad guy who should have been taken out back in 91. Had I been President I would have continued the WW2 policy of unconditional surrender. Instead we got a happy Western family that compromised our "most elevated" human values from the enlightenment. Don't get me wrong, I believe Bush has made many a mistake. The war in Irag may be long but I expected that. If the 91 cease fire was indeed a failure on the part of the West then the following years of U.N. resolutions must be considered so as well. If France and England are any example I think that Bush while not perfect was able to understand and act upon the threat more so than other leaders of his time. That doggedness will be his legacy. Unfortunately I think that most Americans will not agree until the barbarians have assaulted the walls of New Rome again.
They probably are very ticked off. However, those same companies in most instances probably own 900 MHz networks too. What was spent is done and the costs are now sunk. Besides, are they ticked at Q or NOK and the cabal? People talk of walled gardens and flips to GSM in places like Brazil, India, and Australia. A switch to WCDMA in 900 MHz is just as big a switch since it punches holes in the walled garden where NOK and others like to romp. I wonder how many of those same carriers after being hoodwinked promptly invested outside the walled garden.
The switch to 900 MHz should in all fairness be viewed in the same light as a VIVO switch. However, it should be noted that a VIVO switch cites 2GSM as the reason while a move to WCDMA in the 900 MHz is purely 3G related. I know which one I'm with.
Should I assume that .39 is now out the window and that after 4/20 a price of $1.54 will be enough to convince yourself? BTW - I like the way you try and turn it back on mean with the showing off comment about being right or wrong while you ignore your rather smug original post.
You are entitled to think whatever you may but the fact remains that you got it wrong with respect to revenue when you quoted annual revenue in your post. You also did not deal with the fact that wireless companies buy other companies for their subscribers and that they pay in the range I quoted. Please tell me of a buyout that was not in that range. Whether the capital is provided by debt or equity is pointless to the discussion as is goodwill since the aquiring company carries the burden of goodwill and not the one being aquired. Obviously you impress yourself a great deal but that does not change the fact that you were wrong in your post and are now trying to banter on in order to avoid your ignorance. Again I ask you why is it that you are the only one to read an SEC filing and see what other more educated people fail to see? Deal with it and accept the fact that you were and are wrong in your analysis.
You're kidding right? When you read revenue are taking that to mean annual subscriber revenue? You need to think of it in terms of sales proceeds from the sale of the business which is what the document is addressing. Now so you can take another crack at it I will restate what I said before. Gennerally speaking when wireless companies are bought they go for between $1,900 to somewhere around $2,600 depending on the market. Assuming that they have 1,075,000 subscribers at the time of sale Suncom will go for between $2,042,500,000 and $2,795,000,000. After the debt for equity swap Suncom will have roughly one billion dollars of LT debt. Assuming the current assets only cover the current liabilities the share holders will net 1.042 to 1.795 billion. Therefore it seems that we are fairly valued at the low end of buyout ranges. I can't believe you took sales to mean annual revenue. This is not an executive compensation plan we are talking about here but the sale of a company. Maybe if you had stopped and thought about it you would have realized that what you thought you had read was unreasonable. Instead you instructed me to read carefully the black and white. Way to go.
Read and take from it what you will. Nonetheless somebody has been buying significant amounts of Suncom and they can't be expecting to get only 39 cents. The numbers don't lie in asmuch that an 87.5 percent dillution combined with a ten for one reverse split on top of a per subscriber purchase price of $2,400 results in far higher than 39 cents. When did you sell and why do you think that you can glean more from a SEC filing than the people who bought millions of shares? If you did in fact sell I hope you watch from the sidelines and see yourself proven wrong. Have you run the numbers to see what I'm talking about? How long have you been following wireless in general or are you just a spoon fed momentum player who knows nothing other than what a certain stock has done while my fingernails have grown a hairs length?
Although that would be great if it happened I just don't see how it can when wireless companies are bought for between $1,900 to $2,600 per subscriber. Maybe if the debt for equity swap had been for a lower percentage but at 87.5% it is hard to imagine anything over $4. They only have roughly 1.05 million subs and will still have 1 billion in debt after the swap. Ignoring current assets and liabilities say we net 1.4 billion after a purchase. That leaves us current class A shareholders with 12.5 percent of that sum. Therefore we get roughly 175 million which compares to the current market cap how?
"where you sail your column"
I know that was as pointless as calling a roller a steam roller but I like the historical use better.
Now with respect to naval tradition does anyone know where this came from? "Don't speak to me of tradition the Royal Navy is nothing but rum, sodomy, and the lash." I hope I got that right. Happy hunting all.
Count me in as one who knew right away. I would also like to see a night action similar to one off Guadalcanal where you sail your column between two enemy columns and blast away. I want to say it was in Savo Sound but I could be wrong. Either way pass the ammo as they used to say.
Sorry to be a bit thick-headed. I should have known better.
Jim, why do you say "ho hum" to sigle chip DO Rev A when VZN and Sprint are only now in the process of rolling out Rev A. It seems to me that for Q to have a single chip Rev A at such an early point compared to the competition is nothing to lightly dismiss. Besides, if the ALU deal with VZN is worthy of note then so is the device chipset. Rev B IMO is important because it demonstrates that Q is rounding the next bend just as the rest of the pack is only now rounding the last.
Thanks Eric that is one great song. I'm going to have to track my CD down this weekend and let her blow.
"The French Wines and Cheeses ..."
that and, "the war took his lady and bombs killed his baby."
I sure hope I did not get that backwards.
Is it possible that Q kept the patents out of their products and had them designed into other companies components?
With LG winning the low cost 3G for all and HSDPA moving ahead thanks to Q how many plain old WCDMA handsets do people expect NOK to be shipping in the next 12 to 18 months?
If I'm not mistaken when a company belongs to the standards setting process they must license their patents. Therefore, I see no reason why Q could not ask NOK for a FRANDLY license completely seperate from Q's own negotiations with NOK. Does anyone know how many licenses they have signed for their patents and at what rate? We know Q has many licensee's at their standard rate. Others have suggested that besides gaining a reduced rate from Q NOK may also be attempting to breath life into their own licensing program. If they can get value from Q they will then be able to corral the rest of the players into paying too. Would Q consider licensing NOK's patents even if they don't use them in order to pass them through to their own licensee's? I know NOK does not like to offer pass through rights but who knows what Q is asking.
Also, given NOK's industry leading margins how will the transition to 3G affect their margins relative to the other top handset manufacturers? For example assume the other players have an even split across their product lines with one half paying royalties to Q while NOK has an 85 to 15 proportion. Therefore as their products become more subject to royalties their margins should move closer to the rest of the industry. By moving closer I of course mean decline. TIA.
I wonder what NOK thinks about the possibility of not only signing at the same rate but also being liable for past infringement in GSM/GPRS/EDGE? I guess you bluster about lowering rates in the hope you can get a pass on the GSM stuff. It's kind of like saying, sorry about that, is that my hand in your pocket? Don't worry chap, it was an accident.
I hate to say this but PUNKIN may just be right for all the wrong reasons though. Considering that Q, has been hurt by similar things in the past I'm happy with the days gain. Punk should also remember that his short positions sometimes benefit from similar occurrences. I figure there is a good chance someone decided to throw a firecracker after Q's two big 3GSM fireworks. So a few shorts in the crowed got scared and dropped their tickets. If this is true then whoever it was is probably one good poker player.
Does anyone know of any research on short interest? Is there any way to determine how much of the short interest is speculative rather than functions of the financial markets?
PUNKIN you are right in that not everything in this world is always, as it seems. My question to you is have you ever considered the possibility that IDCC is also not what it seems to be?
Hmmm, very interesting. BTW I saw this first here so thank you. So it all goes back to EV-DV and sunk R&D costs. If this is true where does that leave BRCM? Brrrr.
That may be tounge in cheek but I sure hope he made him start there some summer long ago. This is new family wealth so I suspect PJ was raised pretty much middle class.
"he apparently has good jeans." You are correct in that dad is one smart cookie. Hopefully his genes provide him a long and healthy life free from life's too many travails. I wonder if dad ever made him take boxing lessons? Best wishes to you.
Did you send an email to the marketing and IT people at VZN to press the point? With Q executing at the business level with FLO and 3G for all the notion that the lawsuits would strain the new CEO and distract him from the business should be put to rest. This company is not only funding large amounts of R&D but also funding the protection of past R&D to boot.
I wonder what NOK's and LG's ROI hurdles are? I have to think that the much vaunted NOK supply chain combined with the chips LG will be using could have resulted in cheaper phones to the consumer. That is who NOK cares about right? So if NOK the ugly girl gets an honorable mention at the prom and therefore not the lowest cost producer honor how will they capture good margins in the $200 smart phone market? It's probably a good thing there is no 3GSM competition here. I have to think the cost advantage at the low end scaled up still leaves NOK on the short end.
With Q finally delivering on the promise of 3G both at cost and HSDPA functinality might those European carriers complain of downstream harm in the event of an injuction? If injunctions are removed and NOK can't compete where will that leave them? Similar to GM I think. In that event it would serve them well to continue paying at the previous rate in case a diminished future position cannot afford the bill for past sales. MOT going with Q, MOT going with TXN, MOT staying with Freescale, and NOK partially moving to Infineon tell me we may just see NOK emerge from all of this a chipset customer of Q's.
Europe never learns any lesson which is why periodically we send troops over-there to help them out. Where would they be without us? Yet, we have to endure their displeasure. Nice place to visit as I have been there twice but I would not want to live there. To much patting of the back goes on there for my taste. Maybe it is a relic of the old class structure where they are all to busy kissing each others arses with their enlightened ways to notice what fools they are. Please someone pass some more global warming please. It is as if they are to busy knowing what other people think instead of what they think. Shall we quote authors of useless gobblygook to impress? It's no wonder people of good intention left that place for here. We are the better for it. Cheers!
Should I try and reconcile NOK's claim of increased patent position with Q's capture period? Are they trying to have patents of their own considered knowing that capture period Q patents have no added marginal cost to them/NOK? Is this what the option is worth to them? Do the two have a connection? Should I spend any time thinking along these lines?
Ignoring the current spat with NOK it seems to me that predicting royalty reductions is alot like predicting recessions. Sooner or later one is bound to happen. I guess this is the hand he is playing. With respect to the current spat with NOK I think he is wrong. As a matter of belief I think that I will have learned far more by having been invested in Q than I will ever profit from it. That is the power of knowledge. To set my investment aside for the moment I have to say that what bothers me the most is the chance that the patent count scam may just fool enough people. It does not surprise me that this whole fishy thing smells of socialism. Then again why should I be surprised at what Europeans do? If this prevails, standards will be nothing but fronts for big government protected businesses. On another note I have to say I absolutely reject the whole stakeholder mindset. In the future the big existing companies will dilute any new and novel approach to such an extent that the newcomer will be marginalized. Think of it like old school Europeans looking downwards on the new-money class. Let us replace titles with standards I say. Maybe they think they are aggregating R&D across society. Whatever it is, it is un-American and ant-freedom at its core. Group think is NoThink, but try telling that to a European.
Punkin, as you well know nothing has happened yet. I suggest we wait and see.