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.
I feel that the shareholders would have been better served by a $2.00 per share dividend than by a buy back of $35 million . About 20% of the stock is presently out short. A $2.00 dividend would have caused even more short covering, favoring the sharehoders with not only an increase in share price but cash as well. If we see insider dumping during the buyback, I will be even more convinced that a dividend would have been preferable.
Danny You stated: "Also, I don't have the first clue about how to be a successful trader and I suspect the same is true of the insiders."
Insiders are not your usual traders. They are using information not available to the public to gain an unfair advantage over the public.
Mschere: "Nokia would like to represent that they are paying InterDigital only 1% for a far more extensive GSM/ WCDMA Patent Portfolio than Q."
I agree with you on this one, having often thought, myself, along those lines.
Frank Marsala, whom I trust as a conservative analyst, has figured that, even without chip revenues or revenues from new licensees, we should have earnings of $.97/sh for the year 2007. In this worst case scenario, Idcc would be a take over prospect at near where the price is now. So with this limited downside and significant upside, it would be good to hold on to our stock, sleep well, not visit the Ihub board too often and not get too upset by daily fluctuations in price or even legitimate(IMO)frustrations with management. I truly believe we are heading for port. This is no time to jump ship.
Revlis:
FACT: The share price was going up significantly while the company was buying back its stock.
FACT: The share price fell precipitously after massive discretionary selling by a large group of insiders, who sold
at approximately the same time during the buy back.
NUFF SAID!
On my screen, there are practically no shares being offered for less than $26
We gave Nok a good deal. We gave LG a good deal. Why not give Samsung a good deal and move ahead. Unlike Qcom, we can give these good deals and still be very successful and have our stock price constantly move up. We don't have to manage anything like the market cap that Qcom has to manage.
My greatest hope is that that at the August second CC Idcc will announce a settlement with Samsung. If that is not possible, I would hope that there will be an announcement of a suit against one or more infringers. Things that I do not want to hear are reassurances that licencees will be signed up SOON or that we intend to defend our IPR IN THE FUTURE. Patience is wearing thin. It is now put up or shut up time.
Cmini123 You are a bear with blinders on. For you, the glass seems always half full.
"almost 50% of SRDX’s revenue comes from Cypher and related services" Right now that's true, but OVER HALF of revenue comes from other than Cypher and this is growing annually.
"Genetech signing on is a dream" Even if that is true, use of the InnoRx platform for continuous drug release in chronic iritis and glaucoma is still a real possibility. The latter is a very large market.
"Novacell is a zero" We have already made the move from animal to human trials with initial success Even if the supply problem for islet cells takes a while to solve, this project can be a success using just donor islet cells from cadavers and eventually could be a real blockbuster if islet cells can be produced from stem cells.
There's an old adage that goes "buy on the rumor, sell on the news". This can work both ways as in "sell on the rumor, buy on the news". There's a rumor out that Q2 reports for Idcc to be released on August 2nd are going to be very good. I think we've seen some selling on the rumor. Now we can look for some buying on the news.
Jim ,You stated:
"I'm saying what looked good to us IDCC investors wound up to be a great deal for LG investors. See Data's post on that."
O.K. So lets give SAM a similiar great deal and move on. We can then sue NOK, MOT, and ERICY later and NO MORE INSIDER SELLING until the final resolution of those matters, no matter how long it takes.
dmiller: one of the advantages in placing a trailing stop is that the brokerage firm does not send the order to the market maker until the trailing stop price is hit. The regular stop order is sent immediately to the market maker who then may play off of it by bringing the price down to the stop, buying the stock, and then letting the price go up again.(at least this is my understanding)
I was pleased to hear that Idcc had not bot between 25 and 35. First because they had not used the buyback to enhance the price of their insider stock sales and second because they will be able to retire more shares at the cheaper prices the have been buying shares at.
WOW! What a presentation! I wonder how many of the ten and a half million shares of Idcc traded on 7/10/06 were shorts, how many were naked, and how many are now FTD's. Also I wonder about what institutions, especially hedge funds, were in on this fiasco.
Danny: On Thursday 7-6-06 Idcc's closing price was 34.87. On Friday, which was 7-7-06 Idcc dropped more than 2 points to 32.71(6.19% drop) on no news. The PJ report was publicly announced on the next trading day, Monday 7-10-06, the day of the crash. Hmmm
Danny: You misunderstand my point. There is nothing wrong with an analyst doing research and selling his opinions to a customer. What is very wrong is to set it up so that the customer makes a gargantuan profit the next day when the opinion is announced publicly with the spoken or unspoken expectation that the stock will be driven in the direction of the opinion. Then the brokerage firm can justify its high commisions by the profit the customer makes in the trade. This makes the fee a kind of a kickback for the heads up rather than for the analysis itself.
A published opinion from a respected analyst is a material event which inevitably affects the price of the stock. Giving a favored few a heads up on an opinion which is about to be published before the opinion is actually disseminated to the public is akin to letting preferred investors read the galleys of the W.S journal or Business Week before the public is allowed to see them. Information should be either be public or private. When it is private one day and made public the next, it guarantees a windfall profit for either the tipped off private investor(i.e. that a report is coming) or the analyst or both.
I spoke to fidelity about how long they would wait after a client slipped under the margin requirements before selling him out. They said 5 business days. This means that after next Monday, all the margin selling should be over. This might vary from firm to firm and be dependent on price movement, but probably won't be over 5 days
Good news would be either a 3G agreement with Sam or announcement of an infringement suit against them. W. S. was holding its breath waiting to find out what was going to happen with Sam. Then the insider selling, then the PJ report. It became a short sellers dream.
I now believe it is probable that we have had a short attack. I also believe that the shorts have not thrown in the towel yet and are hoping that the margin sellers will help them out.If the price goes up in the next couple of days, they will have to back off IMO. Then I would love to see a real short squeeze.
Revlis: I agree. Qcom's complaint is that Nok won't pay their exorbitant rates for 3G. Our complaint is that Nok won't pay anything at all to Idcc, not even at a considerably lower rate than what Qcom is demanding and all this while Idcc has at least as many 3G essential patents or more than Qcom.
The options are rather clear cut with Sam. Either settlement or suit. The terms are also rather clear cut, having been outlined by the LG license. Let's get off the pot here. Let's invite the ICC to announce their decision and have the suit ready to go if Sam proves intransigent. When we lost an arbitration to Sam, we honored that decision. Why shouldn't Sam return the compliment?
They may have been buying in smaller blocks in addition to the large block,covering their shorts and taking their profit. BTW we may see more institutional short covering in the next few days(somewhat offset by some retail margin calls)
The stock has never been in the public eye as it is now and they will be querried by several institutions as to what has happened
I will be surprised if management does not issue some kind of a statement late in the afternoon or after the market closes today.
This is one rational for investor relations having no statement about today's price crash of Idcc:
Potential interview of Janet by the media:
Media:"Do you know of any reason for today's crash in the price of Idcc?
Janet: "Yes,Massive insider selling"
Media:"Do you really think you can keep your job after that answer?
Janet:"No"
Idcc volume so far is more than half of GE volume. For this to happen, there have to be short selling and margin selling. No change in fundamentals has been commented on by any analyst or by the company today.
I have been through this several times in the past with several stocks. A downgrade causes a sellof and it takes a couple of weeks for the price to creep back to near where it was or beyond if there is any good PR.
On the positive side, the general market should be up today and there has really been no bad news except for insider trading to stop the rally and drop the stock. How about all those who didn't get on the train when it was leaving the station. This is their opportunity to get on now.
This would be an appropriate time for Idcc to put out a PR stating that they are in discussions with SAM about 3G licensing. I'm sure it is true and even without a timetable or a prediction, it would meaningfull.
Loop: Thank you for your cogent explanation of why Samsung 3G claims might be delaying the announcement of the final arbitration decision. If, however, the final arbitration decision denies the Samsung allegation that they are covered for 3G under the Nok PLA, what would prevent Samsung from appealing this decision to the courts and further delaying their 3G licencing with Idcc indefinitely?
When an insider sells it is like hitting the stock with a sledgehammer. No matter how durable the stock is, hit it hard enough and often enough and eventually it will crack.
Clarence, I enjoy reading your posts, which I consider intelligent and balanced. I am glad to hear Seligson's remarks. I think we are on the right track and if we stay the course, we will be rewarded. I would appreciate it if management could also stay the course until we reach our destination.
Jimlur: You stated "My best guess is Sammy will be announced the first week of July". Do you still think this is true now that H.C. has sold a large number of shares on 6/30/06? If we should get good news in the next few days I would think our chairman of the board, H.C., should be replaced for having terribly bad business acumen or for not being in the loop regarding the progress of one of the most critical events concerning Idcc. Or perhaps he was in dire need of cash and couldn't wait a few days for Sammy to happen.
As a non techie listening to the pro and con arguments on Qcom and CDMA, common sense tells me that Qcom which did its best to promote CDMA around the world and apparently failed and also does not seem to have the same strength in WCDMA, is about to take it on the chin.
I am less concerned with Bolgiano taking his six million dollars of "salary" now than I was with BM and HC. The latter two have been intimately involved with(or at least keeping up with) the day to day negotiations with Sam, Nok and possibly others. I am assuming that Bolgiano was not in the loop. Anyway you look at it, their interests are NOT aligned with shareholder interests. Campagna has created and presided over a "shareholder be damned" culture. There has got to be a better way of paying these people competitive salaries without increasing the risk to the shareholders. This dumping by Idcc management gives off a bad odor, which is picked up by W.S., oem's, and even by the courts. It lowers the morale of the engineers whose benefits are orders of magnitude less than what they see their managers getting. It does not help Idcc's reputation on the inside or in the outside.
The proceedings of the DE the U.K. courts have the nature of being intellectual and academic. In the real world, Idcc is being screwed on a daily basis by Nok, which is using its immense cash resources to badger and belittle Idcc and ultimately break its will. Suing these nefarious infringers might bring the deliberations of the courts back into the real world.
Regardless of limited windows of time, selling in the A.M. and pumping the stock at the Bear Sterns conference in the P.M. is inappropriate at best. H. C. our COB and has presided over these kinds of bad vibes with W.S. before. IMO if H.C. resigned, we would get back what we lost today and then some.
Regarding Janet:"It's like they said to themselves: "Hey, IDCC has had a nice run and my shares are up about 100% or more, the market is ugly, maybe I should take 10 - 15% of my shares off the table." (These are my words and based on Janet's comments.)" What Janet said makes sense. What she didn't discuss was that the execs could have said to themselves:"Hey a 3G license is around the corner and the shares will get another 30 to 60% run up real soon so I think I'll be a bit more patient before selling."
Spencer You stated:"Merritt says IDCC is awaiting arb decision regarding Samsung
That means they haven't told the panel to hold off on issuing the decision."
I think you're reading too much into that statement. Negotiations between Idcc and Sam on 2G and 3G have UNDOUBTEDLY been going on and are going on now. The ICC may have had a request for a delay in the announcement of the decision until the parties signal that they are ready to have this announcement. In a sense both parties may be waiting for the time to be right for the announcement of the panel decision or perhaps it will not need to be announced if a settlement is agreed to which would be in the interest of both parties.
Loop: I few years ago I posted that MFL seemed to me to stand for Much Future Litigation. Subseqent events with Idcc licensees over the years have born this idea out. At the time I was informed that MFL clauses were a standard feature in patent licenses. I hope this is not so today or in the future. I always wondered about the reasons for HG's being fired. I now believe it was due do his being outmaneuvered by rival attornies. MFL clauses and special conditions(such as "triggers") played no small role in this. He was however representing a much more vulnerable Idcc than is presently the case and this may have had something to due with his agreeing to these weak licenses. I assume that Idcc has learned from HG's mistakes and will not repeat them