Loving life
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.
pochemunyet .. It now should be clear that the real key to understanding the investor impact of last Thursday was Shay's Cheshire cat grin that he flashed to Teecee and ELI-R re: the 4/11 date.
MO,
Danny
GAB .. Couldn't agree more .. I'm also thinking that NOK knew the 8K was coming out today and had no objection.
MO,
Danny
Jim .. Give me a "G" .. Give me a "E" ...
WHAT'S THAT SPELL!!!
Danny
Nessco .. Good one LOL.
Danny
Last .. Start taking your clothes off .. they will be out the door before you get your shirt unbuttoned. Of course that is al IMHO ..
Danny
nessco .. I know you were looking for an exit point. My advice is to hang in there for a bit .. downside risk has got to be diminimus right now.
MO,
Danny
The Count .. SSALNER posted at 11:09 this morning that Teecee was at the hearing:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27798570. When I saw his post you referenced it was clear to me .. and I think it should have been to anyone .. that his info came from Teecee.
However the post was not as helpful as it could've been by taking another minute to post a bit of detail.
And he has an obligation to do so, WHY?? Because, according to you, There are a lot of people reading this board that have life changing amounts of money invested in IDCC. This is a critical time, so if you post factual information do try to give information on the source.
What possible sense of entitlement led you to the conclusion that he should be cognizant of and responsible for individuals unknown to him who have chosen to bet the farm on IDCC. What you are getting on this board is FREE. If his post didn't come up to your standards of being as helpful as it can be what gives you the right to point out his shortcomings according to The Count's rules of effective posting and, by implication, to ask him to try to do better in the future.
Maybe he thought it was more important to everyone on this board to get the bottom line decision out as quickly and as concise as possible knowing that the details would follow. Maybe he is a very busy man who didn't have enough time to post sufficient detail to satisfy you. What he posted was FACTUAL, not a rumor or comment meant to manipulate the stock price to the downside. To then use his lack of detail and disclosure of the source as an excuse for some of the hostile response is equivalent to an all to common defense tactic of blaming the victim.
MO,
Danny
Loop .. Have a good night and remember that we are still in good shape.
Thankfully we have three days before IDCC trades again. One never knows with WS .. much like with legal outcomes .. but I think enough investors and analysts are on top of this matter that they will conclude the same about what shape we are in.
I would like to join in with sincere thanks to you, whizzeresq, Teecee, ELI-R and SSALNER for a truly outstanding effort today. Loop, you are right, these ARE very trying times for all IDCC shareholders. Hopefully, both boards learned a lesson today that this constant sniping at each other (and I've been plenty guilty of some of it myself) is immature, unprofessional, counterproductive and, well, STUPID. The members of AB and IHUB don't have to like each other in order to work together for the good of both boards. There could be no better example of that than what happened today.
MO,
Danny
Jimlur .. Very possible .. That would fall under the "neutral" category from an IDCC shareholder perspective. Deals that clearly "make sense" from a financial standpoint often don't come together because of intangibles like you have suggested. Another that crops up a lot is "poor fit of corporate cultures." Might be some of that going on here as well.
MO,
Danny
Catchnrel .. Makes no sense to me. What am I missing?
No, it does not make any sense that it has not happened and to me that is the strongest reason that it is not likely to ever happen. Clearly, QCOM has evaluated buying IDCC and have chosen not to do so. There is no way that was a decision made lightly .. the reasons for QCOM not to proceed had to be clear and compelling. Whether those reasons are a positive, negative or neutral from an IDCC shareholder perspective is something we will probably never know.
MO,
Danny
Wilco244 .. Sad, but true. However, it is also true that many .. particularly institutions .. have not been waiting nearly that long relatively.
MO,
Danny
DD .. I really think the institutions (and most individuals) are "all in." Their taste for speculation has long since waned. They've (we've) waited this long what's another couple of days?
MO,
Danny
MTJBKH and Catchnrel .. Yup, and of equal importance to IDCC's prospects, is how the company's revenues may be effected by a severe economic downturn (or as Paulson says, "Down climb") domestically and internationally. Clues to the chances of said downturn may very well lie in how the Bear Stearns situation and the Fed's related actions, play out over time.
MO,
Danny
DD .. Outstanding post! My post today about what Teecee was hearing regarding Bear Stearns was deleted. For the life of me I don't know why .. no profanity .. no slams at IHUB. He offered an insight from someone who is more up close and personal with what is happening than any of us here. This BS development is impacting all of us and will continue to do so, and at the moment it has more impact on our IDCC investment than anything else. That could change tomorrow if IDCC releases some positive news, but right now we are market driven.
MO,
Danny
Laranger .. Now that brings "doublespeak" to a whole new level LOL.
Danny
To All .. Here come the lawsuits ...
Bear Stearns collapsed in less than a week, sending waves of fear around the world over the weekend, but shares of the stock have been trading above the $2-per-share offer price.
Some have been calling the JPMorgan deal a bailout, but to many employees and shareholders, $2 per share for stock that had been trading at $114 in September and $145 a year ago is ridiculously low. (By way of comparison: The $236 million total price for Bear Stearns was lower than what the New York Yankees paid for Alex Rodriguez.)
On Monday, Bear closed at $4.81, an indication that shareholders could reject the deal as too cheap. Shares were up another $2.92, or 60.7%, to $7.73 in midday trading.
Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson said today that the U.S. economy is in a "sharp down climb."
"The economy has turned down sharply," Paulson said on CNBC this morning, noting the "turbulence in our capital markets."
Paulson wasn't all gloom and doom, however, saying that he has "great confidence" in the U.S. markets.
While the deal may be a golden opportunity for JPMorgan, there are many angry Bear Stearns investors who may not go down without a fight.
Barely 24 hours after the acquisition was announced, a number of lawsuits have already been filed. Eastside Holding sued in federal court in Manhattan claiming that Bear Stearns failed "to inform the market of the problems in the company's hedge funds due to the deteriorating subprime mortgage market" Eastside's lawyers said in a statement.
Shareholders "could move to enjoin the deal, but that's a tough hurdle," Michael Kelly of the Wilmington, Del., firm of McCarter & English, told Reuters. "I'm sure the board is going to say this is the best option in our judgment," said Kelly, whose firm specializes in defending companies in lawsuits.
One law firm, Mark & Associates, went so far as to set up a Web site offering free legal advice for Bear Stearns shareholders.
A Bear Stearns employee also sued the company, claiming the company breached its fiduciary duty to its employees. The suits named Chief Executive Officer Alan Schwartz, former CEO Alan "Ace" Greenberg and Chairman Jimmy Cayne.
DD .. It's every man for himself in situations like these. I'm thinking there is a lot more in this deal than the $2 per share that is getting all of the attention. I wouldn't be so sure that JPM will walk if the deal falls through at $2/share. I have to believe that they are on the hook for a lot more than that in liabilities/obligations .. known and unknown .. that they are assuming. None of us know what ALL of the particulars of the deal are about but rest assured there are some individuals out there who are acutely aware what's at stake for them personally and they will act accordingly.
MO,
Danny
DD .. Some are betting that the deal won't go through. I'm certain that there are a lot of enraged shareholders out there. If my other suspicion is correct .. that the top people at BS made sure that JPM took care of them on the way out the door .. when and if this becomes public knowledge the class action lawyers will have a field day.
MO,
Danny
Chris .. I appreciate you feeling the way you do. I was using hyperbole, something I am guilty of often, when stating that he was no better than the crooks the prosecuted.
This is my statement that related to hurting investors: He went overboard, particularly in his tactics, to enhance his vote getting potential. Those "throwing the baby out with the bath water" tactics helped to undermine what little confidence was left on WS further hurting investors and they were used for political gain only.
If you look into his actions as Governor .. particularly those against his real or imagined enemies .. I think you might conclude that he was not always focused on what was best for the citizens of NY whether or not it was good for him.
Finally, there are very few individuals who are "jerks" in their private lives who don't let that creep into their public lives from time to time.
MO,
Brad
Raymond .. WS has NEVER cared about individuals other than themselves and I'm sure they never will. Most of the time investors are not overly hurt (and sometimes even benefit) by their self-serving actions. BUT, when these actions result in financial chaos like we have now, investors have no way to protect themselves and the pain spreads to non-investors as well.
Unfortunately, the governmental regulatory and legal organizations who have the responsibility to protect investors are themselves quite often populated at the top by equally self-serving individuals focused on advancing their political careers rather than protecting investors. There is perhaps no better example of that than Elliot Spitzer. Much of what he did in prosecuting the guilty on WS was much needed and benefited investors. But, make no mistake about it, he was running for Governor all the time with an eye on the Presidency. He went overboard, particularly in his tactics, to enhance his vote getting potential. He had a lot of people hoodwinked for a long time but in the end he was no better than the crooks he prosecuted.
If you want to get an insight into the workings of WS/NYSE read "King of the Club."
Hang in there,
Brad
Jim .. Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding of your comment about being fooled. My interpretation of your remark .. that management was trying to fool us .. seemed really out of character for you.
I'm not surprised by brokers wishing for insider buys .. they'll say anything if they think it will lead to more trades with them and hence more commission income .. I'm not fooled by brokers LOL.
As for institutions please PM me with the names if you can. I'd be very interested in who they are.
How soon we forget .. back during the bubble there was lots of insider buying .. followed by management pumping causing the stock to rise .. sell outs for huge profits by management while still pumping .. ending with outraged investors.
Bottom line .. I want management to keep their eyes solely focused on how to make the company succeed NOT their portfolios.
MO,
Danny
Jim .. I couldn't care less whether an insider ever buys share one. Moreover, I doubt that even one institutional money manager or analyst thinks another thing about it either when listening to the CFO's presentation.
The amount of time spent on this board ranting and raving about the lack of insider buying tells me that as good as this board is AT TIMES it will never be anywhere near as good as it could be. Thankfully, the institutions don't place anywhere near as much emphasis on this in their DD or the stock would be in the single digits. PSSST, they also don't think a CFO making a half a million dollars a year and being given stock when he signed on is any big deal either. But, hey what would I know?
So now you think the company and insiders are trying to "fool you." I never thought I would see the day, but if that is the case there is no point in my posting here.
MO,
Danny
nessco .. That is a very good question and the same can be said for Najarian. Things that make one go hmmmmm.
Mo,
Danny
Count .. Excellent post. I would add why wouldn't an individual investor want to know what negative points are being made by analysts to their clients, most of whom have deep pockets. It might explain some mystifying drops at times and if you have read such reports and are sure they are wrong you won't sell in panic when others not privy to this info might.
Sort of, "keep your friends close and enemies closer"
MO,
Danny
Jim .. From my post: http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=27221874
"My take is that IDCC will have an avalanche of success when we least expect it."
Might be the only prediction I have ever made here that will turn out to be right LOL.
MO,
Danny
Jim .. Thanks .. GREAT e-mail by the investor and it does appear that Najarian already had been looking into IDCC when he received it. That is even better news for us than if he only started to put IDCC on his radar after receiving the e-mail.
Again, coupled with the WSJ article preceding Najarian's comments by only one day, it makes me feel confident that the Street is more closely following IDCC's prospects than at any time before.
MO,
Danny
Jim .. It appears from Najarian's e-mail in response that IDCC was already on his radar: "he responded to my eamil, that he thought the litigation would take care of itself in due time" Doesn't mean that the Ihubber's e-mail wasn't a catalyst for him to go public on IDCC sooner than he would have otherwise.
What I find most interesting is the very close timing of the WSJ article and Najarian's comments on CNBC. Can't imagine that was a coincidence.
MO,
Danny
paheka .. You really need to get over yourself. The long-term members of this and Jimlur's previous boards know that your amateurish "pro-active" efforts have had ABSOLUTELY NO impact on WS's public endorsement of IDCC over the last two days. ALL of the credit for that goes to IDCC's PR tenacity re: road shows, etc.
Maybe you did own 85,000 shares (now 60,000 after your "brilliant" .. i.e. panic .. sale of 25,000 below $17.00) but you sure don't sound like someone with that kind of money to invest.
MO,
Danny
paheka .. I'm sure you are someone who has NEVER been accused of being easy to please .. Sheesh.
MO,
Danny
dndodd ..I almost posted the same thing yesterday! Never thought I'd be agreeing with dmiller but he has had two or three dead on the money posts this week. What's right is right.
MO,
Danny
dolphinsmike .. "they don't need to risk any of their own capital."
Can you show me any document, article, law, guideline, regulation, etc. that states in order for management to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility to maximize shareholder value that they must risk their own capital? Not part of their job description .. no way, no how. As far as ethical/moral responsibilities I don't see that not risking their own capital leaves them wanting in that way either.
Now if it can be shown that they are getting compensated well AND they are not working as hard and smart as possible then all shareholders have a legitimate gripe. I know they are compensated well but I know nothing about their work ethic. I assume the analysts would alert their clients loud and clear .. and us by extension thanks to Jim .. if they thought management was not up to the task.
MO,
Danny
gman1962 .. and you claim to be a hedgefund manager?
Excellent post .. dead on the money. Hedgefund manager .. on what planet .. make that in which universe?
MO,
Danny
DD .. I couldn't agree more. Analysts who consistently point out the cons along with the pros (like Marsala also did) have high credibility when they continue to reiterate a buy at times when it appears little or nothing good is happening. This is particularly true when they explain their position as in as much depth, breadth and clarity as Tom has done.
MO,
Danny
george .. Amen, brother. Only those leaders with the intangibles that you mentioned as well as others end up being winners and that includes the likes of Dan Marino.
MO,
Danny
DR .. my question is when should the company step up and guide to EPS in addition to revenue guidance?
I hate "headline investing" period. In fact, it seems that every aspect of our daily lives is now headline driven, not just when it comes to investing, and I hate that even more. BUT, hating it is not going to make it go away .. it is here to stay. So, I don't think IDCC has a choice but to begin EPS guidance ASAP, particularly since their business will soon no longer be comprised exclusively of high margin licensing revenues.
MO,
Danny
To All .. I'm sure there are members of this board that lost more (on paper) today than the members of IDCC management but I suspect that they are very much in the minority.
IF the current management team has consistently in the past fabricated a rosy picture about future prospects for the company in a desperate attempt to pump up the value of their personal holdings as well as to calm disgruntled shareholders it clearly isn't working. If they have not picked up on that and continued to falsify today they are either stupid or naive about the legal consequences of doing so. I don't think they are either stupid or naive, although I can certainly understand why some here might vehemently disagree.
My take is that IDCC will have an avalanche of success when we least expect it. I no longer have a clue when that might happen. It could be next month or several months from now or even next year or later. Moreover, nothing I have read on this board or in the analyst reports has shed any light on the "when" issue.
Everyone's financial situation is different. I strongly recommend that those that can afford to wait it out no matter how long should do so. On the other hand, for those who might feel significant REAL financial pain if the wait ends up to be more than a couple of months it is time to pare back.
MO,
Danny
Glenny .. and closed at or near the low for the day .. eom
eastlight .. I wasn't recommending the site (for the same reasons you gave). Lando1 asked for a link and I gave it to him. Unfortunately, IMO, IHUB has become a site where every movement in the stock price is commented upon daily and even hourly. Some of the comments are naive and/or beyond the pale when it comes to "explaining" the price movements.
Sure there were trading comments in the past but not to this extent. Negative opinions about the company by some posters have never been accepted well here but what would you expect from a site previously primarily populated by those holding for the long term? BUT, at least the disparaging comments, in the main, were being made by long term holders of the stock.
Now many of those negative comments are tied to some short-term price movement. That's OK I guess .. but it is definitely counterproductive to those looking for DD related to the long term prospects of the company .. positive or negative.
MO,
Danny
Jim .. Ditto .. Glad he is back.
Thanks,
Danny
Lando1 .. Here you go:
http://www.atomicbobs.com/index.php?board=110
Danny