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.
jeffree..I am usually not in total agreement with your analyses, but I am with this one. On a typical (recent) day of 250K shares traded, at best, the shorts are covering 100K. So, it is more like 50 days to cover. I believe the stars are aligned for another run ala 1999 or 2011. JMO.
Lime....."The combined market cap of the other 2 speakers is over $300 billion AND then there's IDCC". Good point. Does seem a bit incongruous doesn't it?
M3S....I am tempted to think it indicates something but more likely it's business as usual: recognize IDCC in standards bodies, trade symposiums etc., but don't pay them. Doesn't cost them anything. Love to be wrong.
ELI_R......This head-licensing guy, Niklas, going from Nokia to Microsoft is disappointing. Curious if anyone else sees it this way: many here, including myself, have been thinking that a settlement may be imminent, the thought being that MSFT doesn't want to be passed the baton of fighting existing, potentially expensive infringement claims. The hiring of Niklas by MSFT seems to indicate that they will be continuing to fight Nokia's infringement-claim battles. So, best we put little faith in a settlement. No?
jeffree... One thing I am very sure of is: if Alston and Bird are involved in anything that can affect the future of IDCC or its stock price, the shorts will be aware of it. A very significant part of A&B's business is their representation of NOK. Many lawyers and support staff are involved in abetting NOK's battle to avoid paying IDCC. It is inconceivable to me that every single one of them is committed to non-disclosure to interested parties. JMO.
Maybe the shorts got some bad news from their buddies at Alston and Bird. One can only hope. JMO.
jjff...Precisely!...eom.
dmiller...If your definition of naked shorting requires the identification, and actual borrowing of specific shares before shorting, then I guess it will be the end of High Frequency Trading?? After all, many HFT trades are initiated as shorts. Obviously, HFT traders are not doing the locate and borrow thing every time they short. (because they trade multiple times in a second, or less). So, I doubt this is the end of "naked shorting". The "Madoff Exemption" would have to be done away with if ALL naked shorting were to end.
mickey...I was in the business for 20+ years and do not understand this change. However, I would certainly not jump to the conclusion that shares can no longer be borrowed to short. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee it. A "self-regulated" entity in this industry is not going to kill the golden goose. Probably just another way to avoid or prolong covering over-shorted stocks. IMO.
amr......Absolutely right. I have been screaming about this since 2007 when Christopher Cox (SEC Chair) was given the order to do away with it. In fact, I quit the brokerage business in 2008 largely due to this obvious ploy that continues to enable the GS's of the world to, day-in, day-out, play the game without the fear of ever losing.
mag.... I have no idea. But this is the type of scenario that could delay release of a completed agreement.
dmiller.....I don't want to belabor my speculation and, if there is indeed any basis to it, they will not be clarifying the statement on the call. There are many reasons a deal can be completed but the time is not ripe for dissemination. Case in point, the Apple/IDCC deal (such as it was), was announced weeks after it was completed due to lengthy negotiations on the wording of the release. There are other reasons a deal can be done but not announceable, such as competitive considerations. Like I said, originally, it is "possible".
dmiller....They could have said "while we were unable to complete..........". A subtlety I wouldn't expect you to see.
While we weren't able to announce the completion of major licensing milestones,
IMO, interesting choice of words. Possible that the major licensing milestones may have indeed been achieved but, for some reason, not announceable. JMO.
I think IDCC assets are more valuable to someone else
GBR: Absolutely true. It has been that way for a while. The BOD has given BM more than a reasonable amount of time to prove differently. Time to cash in.
GBR...All great points. EOM.
I am not predicting anything. It's just the way it works. Many shares are being bought to facilitate the collection of put premiums (i.e., causing them to expire worthless). These shares are not intended to be held and will be sold, most likely in the coming week. JMO.
The goal of today's big traders is merely to make sure all the puts (insurance) that were bought expire worthless. Then next week they will move the SP down considerably.
No one on this board, including myself, can win in the options game. Stay away from the purchase or sales of options. If you just can't resist, at least never buy puts on a severely over-sold stock or, the obverse, calls on a severely over-bought stock.
Sab... Sorry to make you go through that whole explanation as I do understand. I thought you were talking about shares not puts. My bad.
I am hoping that the open int. in the puts are a lot of naked shorts betting that we don't bust or think that being put the stock is worthwhile.
Sab...when you say "naked shorts", what do you mean? As in not having borrowed the stock to short , or naked in the sense of being unhedged?
Just curious. Big difference.
M3S...Same as they've been doing: Nothing.
Goodbuddy..Some of them could be on the Board of Directors for Nokia[WAG].
Although it is only an opinion, I am quite confident that the flow of information to the people who have been one step ahead of the market (and us), goes from Nokia through Alston and Bird. JMO.
Is the ITC so blind that it can't see the willful abuse by the Chinese and Finnish Companies? Are they out to protect the United States companies or support their economic well-being?
Fish...You hit the nail on the head. That truly is the question. If I had to bet, I think the answer would be the latter, unfortunately.
Id' love to be wrong.
Rak.. Big difference between Federal and Supreme Courts vis-a-vis ITC.
Rat...First off, I didn't say the shorts know everything all the time. And, what makes you think IDCC knows what the shorts know? If the decision was bought by Nokia, how would IDCC know?
I think you and others here have way too much faith in the judicial system. JMO.
Now, lately it appears that there has been No inclination for the shorts to do any covering...even as the Company has been buying back shares, and the "news" lately has been good over all...they have shorted More...
We just need Real Good news and One Day they will either Choose to cover or be Forced to...
Or, they are already aware of what the decision is. Which I am inclined to believe.
As far as "put protection"---forget it. The premiums are such that the price will not go down enough for you to "collect on the insurance". It' like Prego spaghetti sauce: "It's already in there". So you'll lose on the stock price and throw away what you paid for the put. Tough to beat "the house".
GBR....Had to be repurchased off market, probably from a large shareholder like Paulsen. One of my theories as to why there is continual pressure on the stock is that some hedge fund or other big player has knowledge that a large holder wants out of some or all of their position. If, for example, a million or two, or three had to be sold say, before the end of the year, or in the very near term, it would be a no-brainer for the shorts. JMO.
DR....Yes. It seems they have the strength. Just as important, they have the WILL (for some unknown reason). JMO.
Several here have opined that, given MSFT's imminent purchase of NOK's handset division, a settlement may be at hand because "there is no way MSFT would want to complete the purchase" with NOK's potential legacy obligation for infringement. I agree, there is no way MSFT would do this. However, it is very possible that the die has already been cast at the ITC and MSFT and NOK are going on their merry way assured that this will not be a problem. Total faith in the integrity of the ITC is misplaced, IMO. The continued suppression of the stock price (and subsequent addition to SI) would support this view.
What's amusing, and at the same time disheartening to me, is that whenever there seems to be a positive moment of clarity for the future of IDCC, the short position increases. Total m_ndf__k.
One needs to be careful reading anything into daily short trades. These trades have very little , if anything, to do with short interest. They are only trades that are initiated as short. Thanks to the Madoff exception, hedgies and brokers can "short" shares without first borrowing. The combination of the Madoff exception and the ability to short on down-ticks are the the basis for the daily manipulation of stocks.
Good buddy. You are correct. The individual investor is not party to NSS. But he is a victim of same. In this case, SAC, GS and others ARE the organized criminals. JMO.
OT...jjff....Am very familiar with it, but haven't checked in a while. Will do, thanks.
M3s...Truly amazing! Perhaps one of the legals can shine some light on this. Is this normal? Has it happened before? Is there something afoot at the ITC where commissioners, who in the past were unconcerned about propriety and justice, are "getting some religion"? Love to know.
OT....Magilla....Wow. I understand, and agree with, everything you say. From the 1970's until around 2000, I made quite a bit of money as a long-term investor in small companies (like IDCC). One could, until then, rely on the integrity of the market and the fact that it was a zero-sum game. Now I have the majority of my assets in cash, earning zero. I continue to hold IDCC and a few other companies that I believe to be undervalued. As I have said here before, the 2 major changes in trading "rules" that have enabled the miscreants to suck the rest of us dry were:the creation of the Madoff Exception (or Exemption) in the early 2000's, and the removal of the uptick requirement for shorting stock (2007). It's a total outrage, IMO.
Warbil......Please don't apologize about things sounding like conspiracy theories because, more than likely, they do exist when it comes to the ITC, Nokia and Nokia's American law firm Alston and Bird. You are right, some of the screwiest decisions emanate from the ITC, where IDCC is involved. IMO, Alston and Bird is very cozy with some at the ITC and, for what it is worth, I believe those who control IDCC's stock price get "timely" information from A and B. Again, JMO.
jjff...Absolutely true..... The DTCC pays no attention to how many shares are actually outstanding in any particular company. No wonder there is little to no correlation between intrinsic value and share price in today's market.
OT...Magilla.....I don't think Cohen is out of the woods yet. The trials of Martoma and Steinberg, coming up in the next few months, may shed some not-so-positivie light on dear Stevie.
Also, I have followed OSTK for quite a few years and am a shareholder. It is, by any industry-metric, undervalued by a lot. I know SAC and many others naked-shorted OSTK almost into oblivion. I often wonder how many, if any, of those naked shorts are still in the system. You may recall that PB, maybe 3 years ago, announced that out of something like 6000 shareholders, the top 60 owned 106% of the Company!! I don't understand how such a large number of phantom shares can be "washed" out of the system over time. Another curiosity I have is: are undelivered shares still going into the system??
Any thoughts?
TIA
Mr. or Ms. Miller......As a general rule, the buying back of stock is based on creating value for the shareholders. Consequently, the lower the buyback price, the better. Buybacks are not intended to "support" the stock. So, any perception that a "buyback" is in progress is specious and misguided. Any broker worth his salt will not cause the share price to rise.
Magilla...When you really think about it......Returns of 30% for 20 years is absolutely impossible without illegal activity. While no one has really focused on this absurdity, obviously the Feds did. Having been in the industry from 1989 through 2008, I was well aware of the antics of SAC. I can't convey how pleased I am that this miscreant and his cronies are going down.