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.
So, what are chances that AMZN's retina-tracking function was developed by IDCC? Or that the patents were licensed to AMZN?
Given Nokia's cozy relationship with the Thomson Reuters foundation, one wonders who tipped off Reuters to the decision? Also curious that it was announced during market hours. Maximum effect. In retrospect, looks like the introduction of the new Lumia by MSFT and NOK was announced with impunity (at least for now).
My3s...No I am not. I have found that, in today's world of FD, not much can be learned by attending. Also, I've retired and live in southern Florida (too big a journey). That being said, this year could be gangbusters. In any case, I have enjoyed seeing you there over the years. Best of luck.
Gat, glider.......The announcement of the introduction of the Lumia is very curious. I'm a dot-connector from way back. Most of the dots have turned out to be mere chimeras. However, the timing is noteworthy. It would seem that either a deal has been struck or MSFT has decided to pick up where NOK left off----thumbing their noses at IDCC. Also curious that there has been nothing about IDCC's request for expedited response re: inclusion of MSFT at the ITC. We won't have to wait too long for clarity, IMO.
jist1...Yes. World of hurt. I think I can hear a faint gnashing of teeth as we speak! I can't get the vision out of my mind of BM smiling (on CNBC) as he mumbled something about an imminent announcement concerning the reallocation of capital. At least that was my impression.
jist1...Love to see either (and we may) but, I think an elaboration on BM's hint of additional return of capital to the shareholders is THE most likely. IDCC has control over that, whereas they have less control over the timing of settlements. JMO.
squinge......Extra special news between now and the ASM is very likely....Friday-----not so much. IMO.
mickey....You forgot one possibility: BM et al still have to justify their year-end stock grants. I believe there is a strategic relationship that has been set (but not announced) that represents the basis for these grants. The signing of Fujitsu and Samsung certainly could not have been foreseen as done deals at the time of the stock grants. In any case, this coming week will be exciting. JMO.
patopinion.....Thanks for that info. I doubt that we will see a split at this point. If we do, 3 for 2 makes the most sense at the current price. However, before or at the annual meeting I believe we will see a healthy increase in the quarterly dividend, or a special dividend, along with an increase in the authorized buyback. In addition, I think there is a very good chance for additional positive, strategic news. JMO.
Hydro gen.....While we are on the subject, I believe a 3 for 2 split would be the best course of action. (And I have, in the past, suggested it to the BOD). Case in point: There was a company in the mid-nineties, Cheyenne Software, that split their stock 3 for 2, I believe it was four times (before they got bought out by Computer Associates). Every time the stock got to $45, they split. With the ensuing stock price at $30, it was much easier and more likely to return to $45 (50% move) than if they had split 2 for 1 ($45 to $22.50----100% move). It worked well for them and I believe it would be best for IDCC. Particularly if they raise the dividend on the split shares. JMO.
Felix....Thanks for those few words. I was contemplating a long discourse explaining to Mickey that the market makers of 20 years ago don't exist anymore, as he seems to believe, and the system is broken and........etc. But you summed it up perfectly: THEY ARE THE SHORTS. Perfect.
dndodd...All possible, some very possible, some probable IMO.
doctor...I agree. I was heading out the door when I posted that. A substantial increase to the regular dividend is just as likely. Perhaps in conjunction with an increased buyback. I think we'll know soon.
Sounds to me like another Special D coming.
Question for accountants: It appears that, taking the mid-points of original and revised recurring revenue estimates, Samsung will be contributing about $18M per quarter (plus growth). This seems small compared to Samsung's market share. So: the question is this: How much (if any) of back revenues is being pulled out of this quarter's revenue. In other words, since the deal has happened approximately 2/3 of the way through the quarter, maybe only June's portion is included in the revised estimates and the real number to look for next quarter, for example, will be closer to $50M. Any thoughts?
IMO, something large is going to happen between now and the Annual Meeting. In my 20 years as a shareholder, I've never been more certain. In that time I've connected a lot of dots that, in retrospect, didn't exist. This time I think IT IS different.
GBR... Thank you for posting the bit about APPL. This possibility is a perfect example of a situation where a done-deal is not announceable until a certain date in the future. It is interesting that the unveiling of this new technology will be happening before the annual meeting.
Has anyone noticed (or commented on) the options activity of late? Last week there were 2000 Jun 40s that traded at $.35 ($70,000) with no reciprocal puts or other strike prices that would indicate any type of spread. Also, today, 1000 Jun 35s at $1.55 ($155,000) with no offsetting purchases or sales. Curious, indeed.
mickey...IF Intel or anyone else were to purchase IDCC today, you best lower your expectations to the $70 to $100 range. In order to get to the $250 level, IDCC would had to have reached the $800M revenue level with the promise of 25-30% growth from there. Since we are at a run rate of about $240m in revs. with no growth, $250 per share is a tad optimistic! JMO
Fog....Great to see someone here gets it.
Without any additional news, it's the same-old, same-old. Stock will founder. The independent Directors should be getting a little antsy about our management team. Disappointing.
Rakitno......There are, or have been, a number of companies whose institutional and insider holdings top 100%. On the surface it seems impossible. Unless there is something I am unaware of, there are two plausible explanations: 1) some of these shares have been lent to the shorts, or 2) naked shorts exist.
jeffree.. Maybe. I have no idea what will happen, but my sense is that the complexion of IDCC's standing in the wireless world (and the trading of its stock) is about to change. IMO, we'll soon see.
mickey......We got good news today when it was announced that the MSFT/NOK will close by Friday. If there is no settlement with IDCC, I feel a lot better about dealing with MSFT. At the very least, the shorts' main source(s) of information will go away. JMO.
It's a start.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101582315
themaude..Exactly! eom.
jist1...
It seems to me the argument for not changing the current system is Liquidity. Am I correct in this assessment?
Yes. That is a standard argument. However, the entire system of stock ownership and market valuations is based on the existence and issuance of a finite number of shares in any particular issue. No matter how you look at it (i.e., unauthorized sale of shares or unauthorized derivative creation), the system as we know it, and have trusted as a zero-sum game, has been compromised (hacked).
jist1...
hock1, do we know that IDCC is being significantly impacted by naked shorts?
I am quite certain that, in the past, IDCC (like many small to medium companies) has been manipulated by naked short selling. To what extent it exists today, I don't know. Keep in mind that, due to the ability of "market makers" (i.e., every hedge fund and brokerage trading desks), to initiate short sales without first identifying and actually borrowing shares, naked shorts are a routine part of today's trading. Most of these shorts are covered before settlement and are used solely for the purpose of controlling (manipulating) share prices.
Would you say that naked shorting is essentially counterfeit stock?
Yes. There are essentially 2 ways of looking at these NS sales. (And there are a handful of lawsuits against brokerages and hedge funds defining the crime as such). 1) They are selling unauthorized securities. Only a company can issue its shares, after gaining appropriate consent from the SEC.
2) They are creating a form of derivative, not approved by the necessary authority.
Would stock buybacks stifle and expose the naked shorting? Your comments on these questions is appreciated.
No, not necessarily. Because no clearing agency (such as the DTCC) has a mandate to allow only the total number of outstanding shares, in any particular stock, to trade within the system. This is why I said that the only way to stem the use of NSS is to assign a number to each and every outstanding share.
Hope this helps.
jeffree...I've known about naked short-selling since 2003. As I said here years ago, it is the biggest financial crime ever perpetrated against legitimate investors. Hundreds of companies have been naked-shorted into oblivion. Billions of dollars have been sucked out of our system.There IS no guarantee that when you buy shares of any publicly traded company you are receiving actual, authorized shares.
There is no way of knowing how many shares of IDCC, held long, are actual shares. Some with louder voices than mine, (Patrick Byrne and Matt Taibbi to name two) have been screaming about this for a decade now. (Also, I believe it was The Economist that had an article about naked short-selling a few years ago.) It is a complicated issue-----too complicated for our politicians and regulators to even understand, let alone do anything about it.
dndodd....OT...The worst part is I was so sure, no need to look it up. Makes one wonder about all the other things that you "know"!
dndodd...Thanks. Bad memory! eom.
FISH.. not to split hairs, but I believe it was a $1.00 special dividend.
jeffree..
NOK is Not in position to Indemnify MSFT from ALL IPR holders...especially IDCC...MSFT is Paying NOK for Their patents in a License agreement, multi-year..yet the Devices that MSFT will be selling (handsets, tablets, phablets, +other mobiles) may still infringe (many of us Here Believe that to be the case) and put MSFT "at risk"...
Yes. I get all that. I never said NOK would indemnify MSFT against all IPR holders. I am merely addressing the speculation that MSFT needs NOK to settle before the acquisition. I still don't think there is an urgency to do so.
Common sense would say that MSFT and NOK have Something in the "acquisition contract" to "protect" MSFT from those (and other) risks...that they could inherit...
In order for NOK to "maintain a patent portfolio Strong enuf" to safely protect MSFT, NOK would have to BUY InterDigital...and I doubt they have that much Cash...
They don't have to buy IDCC, they just have to deal with patent challenges as they occur.
jeffree.....If Nokia is retaining patents, then it seems that there is no need, or urgency, for MSFT to pressure NOK to settle prior to the deal closing. NOK can simply warrant to MSFT that they (NOK) will maintain a patent portfolio that will ensure MSFT's continuing ability to sell product. Am I missing something? Anyone?
lumpy..OT.. I have spent 6 months every year for the past 7 years on Marco. I now live on Isles of Capri, just off Marco. Paradise.
poch...If the worst happens and the miscreants blow it up again like they did in 2008, then there will be no choice. We, this country, can't afford to go there again.
Lime....You don't have to worry about HFT as far as IDCC is concerned. What you do have to be worried about, and outraged by, is that the two major changes to trading in our markets over the past 17 years, provide both the foundation for the very existence of HFT AND the ability of hedge funds, and the like, to control and manipulate stock prices.
I've mentioned it here many times but I will again. These two fundamental changes are:
1) In 2007, the SEC saw fit to eliminate the uptick rule. For those who don't know (or remember), the uptick rule was instituted in 1934, to prevent short sellers from selling at below-market prices for the purpose of either a) profiting from a falling and/or panicked market or b) destroying the ability of companies to succeed by raising additional, equity capital. And,
2) In the early part of this century (2001-2002), Bernie Madoff (yes, the very same in jail for 150 years and once believed to be in line for head of the SEC) convinced the powers-that-be to allow "market makers" to short stock without first identifying and actually borrowing shares that are being sold short.
I was very heartened to see Lewis' piece. I have been aware of, and have fumed about, for more than a decade, the degradation of our free-market system. Because the above changes were made, ostensibly in a legal fashion, HFT and the everyday manipulation of stock prices are NOT ILLEGAL! Lewis' expose is a start. Unfortunately it will be years before our politicians realize how easy it would be to undo. JMO.
dndodd and jist1.......I have no knowledge of, or even a guess as to, the nature of a deal that is done.
I base my speculation on 2 factors:
1) A few of the folks that run IDCC are lawyers. With the ostensible under-performance in 2013 and the blatant over-granting of yearend financial awards, they would be crazy to not be able to justify their self-granted largesse, say, before the annual meeting.
2) As stated in a previous post, which was pooh-poohed by those who offered an opinion, my interpretation of BM's quote:
"While we weren't able to announce the completion of major licensing milestones",
was that they were strictly unable to announce licensing milestones. As opposed to unable to close or accomplish any licensing milestones.
As to them being precluded from announcing a deal. There are numerous potential reasons, two that come immediately to mind are 1) competitive considerations and 2) Agreements with other related parties might have to be consummated, or parties that are unrelated need to complete an agreement that they may have. All JMO.
dndodd...I don't think so. The stock is razor thin. Even so, as I have stated before, I believe there is a good chance that some kind of deal is already done but, heretofore, unannounceable. JMO