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.
Bite your tongue grither. LOL
Thanks dmiller.
My point was that we cannot assume that margin selling is over when in fact it could, and likely will last up to 3 days.
IMO, part of the reason the price is bound in the small range it is today, is the buyers, many of them shorts, covering their short sales, are patiently waiting for those margin call shares to fall right into their waiting hands.
If I'm not incorrect, you've got 3 days to cover your margin.
Jim, always good to hear from you. Appreciate your comments.
The day of the Sammy announcement and the day after totaled 4.4 million; just above what it took one day to almost match that while dropping the price almost back to where it started.
Weve hit below the 61.8% retracement level:
No reason it couldn't be naked shorting. No doubt in my mind that the uptick rule, if it was still in place, would have helped prevent this. I can't see any institutions dumping stock like this unless they have to to remain solvent.
Ellix, I been in IDCC since late 2001 and I can tell you that I have never seen any evidence that IDCC management actions have reflected, at least in the short term, concern with the shareholders interest. That said, it may be that it's because their long term goal is the primary one. On the other hand, I also have never seen any evidence that management has sacrificed any short term benefit to themselves. This impression may not be accurate but it is mine. I also have the impression that most of the longs here have learned to accept it as part of the package; if they are not defending it. Most publicly held corporations are not much different. IMO
Panicking stock holders on margin and stop loss orders are surely adding to the selling pressure, IMO
It's interesting that Tom Carpenter reduced his recommendations to HOLD recently and then today, apparently did not participate in the conference call.
I hope we hear something positive from him soon. The price is well below where he made his BUY recommendation after the Samsung news.
Right there with you Nicmar.
Thank you Data.
nicmar, like you I gambled and bought a significant amount near the low, yesterday, taking it just prior to the earnings release. I leaned on Ronnie analysis as he is rarely wrong. As it was, he was right and I did not factor in for a surprise such as the bonus cost in the 4th qtr. I wish I had been even more patient. I took a chance and it burned me.
Volume has dried up for now.
Main markets pulling back. This will add negative force on the shareprice. I hope we stabilize. I expect that there will be a lot of margin calls coming into play if we don't regain some of the share price soon. It is a good buying opportunity, IMO.
MACD crossover to the upside on the five minute chart. We should have some sort of little rally here. (Hopefully) $26 - $26.25 = resistance. No easing of volume so far.
dmiller, I'm not listening to the call right now but I have listened to many. I've always thought that IDCC's management could out tap dance Sammy Davis Jr. I've also wondered on many occasions why the analyst and large investors included in the conference call don't call them on it. It's why there's so much tea leaf reading here.
Rakitno, that seems to be an oversimplification to me. 1M shares traded in less than an hour with relentless selling. This board did not do that.
It may be that by crossing a threshold, stop loss orders were triggered that created more selling as the price spiraled down. If that's the case, this truly is a buying opportunity. It could also be a coordinated short attack.
The writedown potential related to the Slimchip modem is disturbing to me. I wish someone could explain that.
Yes, the projections are positive but it's also true that IDCC's management has a talent for pulling a black rabbit out of the hat every time things are looking good. THAT may also be a factor in the extreme selling. All IMO
Anyone else having trouble with Scottrade's streaming quotes? Mine won't come up. TIA
LOL! Yeah, I just realized it! I damn sure couldn't figure out why I wasn't coming to the end of the posts when I looked at the message number I was on and the number of the last post. The first thing I saw when I clicked on the main message list was your post to me. Oh well, I clicked on a link to an old post and ended up not returning. I had skipped a bunch of post back in January and didn't recognize them. Durup!
"hope rules eternal"
Warbil, that is a good thought but one I personally would not bet on; even with very favorable odds.
"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"
Nicmar, I don't think there's a snowball's chance that the stock doesn't take a big hit tomorrow at the open at least. With the situation in the overall market as it is, IDCC has held up very well and will likely have a catch-up day with a headline miss on earnings. The conference call will determine how long the dip last. All IMO.
Net, the charts I pull up don't show that trend line. Can anyone post a chart that matches what you say they showed on CNBC? TIA
Based on Ronnie's projections, what would IDCC's P/E be afterward?
jjif, don't get me wrong, I agree with you.
If she re-imposes the uptick rule, it will be an example of "closing the barn door after the horses have escaped".
Ridiculous!
Scottrade's streaming quotes chart shows a 59,000 share block trade with no change in the closing price of 31.97. Anyone else see this?
More correctly; worry about the fact that IDCC will almost certainly have to sue for royalties beyond 2012, regardless of flavor.
I'm not being negative but rather using history as a guide. IMO, that's the reality.
It's good that IDCC's name and its success gets out there, even if the writer obviously put out a sloppy piece about a stock he knows little about. I suspect this guy builds his reputation by perusing the news sites looking for something that he can write about and then tries to make himself look smart after a little research. For example; he portrayed the settlement as being over the Slimchip design patents:
"Just ask Samsung, as InterDigital recently settled a patent dispute with the cellular phone giant in regard to the company's 3G and 2G SlimChip designs."
He then states that the share price has more than doubled when simple math, using his own figures, would have indicated he missed the mark.
"IDCC has logged an impressive technical performance since bottoming near $16 per share in late October 2008. During this time frame, the stock has more than doubled along the support of its 10-day and 20-day moving averages."
While, like the blind hog, he's going to be right some of the time and in IDCC's case, he probably is, it goes to show that you have to take all you read from these so caled "experts" with a good dose of salt.
Ronnie, thanks for the analysis. I have to take issue with the way you compared the two but before I do, I will say that I have always thought that you have been very objective in the analysis you have provided us in the past and I have no doubt that you took the same approach with this one. You have been a service to all here.
The issue I have is that you state that the LG and Samsung ageement compare favorably with each other, a position I disagree with. If one take the beginning of the LG contract (1st quarter '06) as the period one compares the two, Samsung has a much better deal IMO. As you point out, the agreement cost LG $14.25M/qtr for 5 years/20 quarters, ending in 2010 for a total of $285M. I remember the posters here reasoning that one of the reasons that the agreement wasn't for more was because LG settled before the others and therefore was due a discount for signing without dragging it out in court as well as for prepaying the monies. Samsung, on he other hand, was using IDCC IPR in in 2006, and before, but not paying for it. Three years have past and now, after dragging things out in court, Samsung will have an agreement that covers them until 2012. In order to fairly compare the two agreements, you have to start from the 1st Qtr '06, which gives Samsung a license that essentially covers 7 years/28 quarters. This calculates to $14.28/qtr or roughly the same as LG even though Samsung has about twice the sales volume. Assuming that IDCC were to negotiate the same rate with LG for the years 2011 and 2012, at the end of that perios, LG will have paid $399M for the same period as Samsung.
Based on my calculations, Samsung, by taking the litigation route, got a rate that is 1/2 of what LG agreed to.
revlis, I am hopeful about NOK but that situation is somewhat different that Sammy since NOK settled up on 2G for a good bit of money and also has a license for all of IDCC's TDD IPR. (this may be the reason the TD-SCDMA is not mentioned in the SAMMY release) NOK has a larger share of the market but is going to want a major adjustment to offset their 2G payment.
I'm hoping that NOK ends up paying as much as Samsung going forward but at the same time I'm preparing myself for less. I anticipate that NOK is going to take a hard line w/IDCC and will be willing to continue litigation without IDCC's co-operation.
Ed, I'm not saying your wrong because I have no idea for sure but it is possible that Janet misunderstood the question or gave an answer that was misunderstood. It was a one sentence question and a one word answer after all.
I will have to say, if the total is $400M, it will be par for the course from IDCC management (ERICY, NOK1, etc) What I'm confused about is; If the total amount is only $400M, why didn't they give themselves bigger bonuses? If your going to be ridiculous, why not go all the way? I hope there's more to this.
"If 400 million is all we get through 2012, then Mgt did NOT negotiate a good deal for the shareholders imo.
lastchoice, while your question and JP's response seems self evident, I'm sure it will be vigorously analyzed. For instance, when you asked if the $400M was a total amount, you did not specify what you meant by total amount. Was that total amount for past due sales and 2G through 2010? or was it total amount of money to be recieved from Samsung through 2012? or what?
Janet's apparent answer does not seem to jibe with the statement in the release that 2G would be paid up after 2010? If the money covered everything through 2012, why not say all sales were covered through 2012.
I will say that it is a crock that IDCC cannot release a PR that is even remotely decipherable.
No doubt I agree with you but if IDCC did release the 8K with wording that was confusing enough to actually mean what you suggest, IMO, they would be guilty of willful misrepresentation.
What I want to know is:
Why in the hell didn't someone point out the $0.10 options before the market was about to close?
All is good though!
revlis, the part of the release you highlighted has some interesting wording:
to resolve the outstanding arbitration disputes involving Samsung's sale of 2G products, as well as the patent disputes over Samsung's sales of 3G products
Does the agreement cover payment of 3G through 2008 or is there still something left?
I would have thought the same thing bim but the release says that Sammy will be paid up after 2010 for 2G.
ed, you might be right but my reading does not match your understanding. Can you interpret the release to show how you come up with that?
"No, I think the 400 million is through 2012."
gatticaa, I believe that statement means that Samsung will not owe for any 2G products after 2010 but will continue to owe for 3G products after that date.