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.
Jim.....Before you go deleting, I simply ask that you actually listen to the link I provided to determine whether or not it is on topic. I will assure you there is nothing out there that is more "on topic". As far as Sloane is concerned: "Only that day dawns to which we are awake."
mpeppy........Having hundreds of billions to work with certainly didn't hurt. However, if you listen to the link that I provided in post # 317411, I think it might alter your opinion considerably, JMO.
To All.... What we all need to pay attention to is this: One year ago GS was bragging about the fact that they made money every single day in Q1 of 2010. Now they don't even want to talk about their trading acumen. Why? Because they do make money every single day. How is that possible? If they make money every day, then somebody has to lose. Guess who??
paheka....impossible to know about the categorization of the $9M but I think it is safe to say that, as has been pointed out many times, IDCC's Q1 revenues comprise royalties on sales made in Q4. So when IDCC announced guidance they already had HTC's and everyone else's numbers. Now, our Q2 will reflect HTC's accelerating Q1 sales. IMO.
To All......I just spent 2 1/2 hours listening to this. I highly recommend that anyone interested in understanding how today's market work spend the time to listen. It will be well-worth your time.
http://peacerevolution.podomatic.com/entry/2010-05-18T16_27_48-07_00/
http://peacerevolution.podomatic.com/
redviking.....Yes it does appear that way. I don't know if he simply hasn't changed his model or what. He has been very positive on IDCC. If I remember correctly, hasn't someone on this board communicated with Shuttleworth in the past? Perhaps a heads-up to him would save an unnecessary "miss" vis-a-vis the average analyst's revenue projections? JMO.
longinvestor...I agree with your statement about not chasing stock prices. However, if an analyst has an agenda and is being disingenuous then, by definition, it is not an opinion. This is the type of behavior that people have become inured to. I believe it is best to call out those who would lie and cheat in this manner. JMO.
Excellent point....It seems that, at least until recently, IDCC has paid no mind to the shorts and the fact that their stock price is manipulated. They may not even have believed that to be the case. I think today's top people at IDCC have their eyes a little wider open.
If any one has a spread sheet of the analyst's estimates that delineates which analyst has what number for revenues, I'd be glad to forward it to Janet with a recommendation that she give them a call.
I think it is a good idea. Thanks.
JMO
scooby...When IDCC makes their estimate of the quarterly earnings, they know within a very small range what the number will be (absent revenues that may come in from new licensees or audits before the actual end of the quarter). It would be unethical and illegal for them to intentionally "guide" low. No, the real solution is to reinstall the trading rules that kept our markets at a pretty level and trustworthy playing field for decades. This would put an abrupt end to the shenanigans that control our "markets" today. JMO.
scooby...yes, some of the "analysts" do want that to happen, because they are paid shills. When earnings news is "reported" on, the earnings are judged against what the analysts predicted. There is never a qualification that says what the company itself is predicting. So, now when Idcc "misses" on revenues, the stock will go down. Not because longs are dumping, but because those who have used the trading of IDCC as their personal ATM machine will make it go down. So the predictable headline "Idcc falls on revenue miss" will not be the reason it went down, it will be the excuse. Sick.
It's like clockwork..every 3rd Friday of every month. Hogs back at the trough. Lovely!
you are preaching to the choir!.eom.
Jiff...That is correct. Read about FINRA..Same thing. If you look at all the rule changes that FINRA has promulgated or is currently proposing, they are all designed to keep them cheating and stealing.
As I have mentioned here before, the biggest problem, naked short selling, was aided and abetted by the DTCC. Nobody ever told the DTCC that there are only so many shares outstanding in any given stock. Since the market became electronic, it was easy to simply have a position on a computer screen. I.e., someone sold, someone bought. This is why the NSS guys got away with the biggest financial crime in the history of our markets.
In 2005, when NSS started to be talked about, the SEC said that it didn't exist. By 2007, they realized that it did/does. They now have a definition for naked short selling: simply when "shares are shorted but not delivered". They don't say it's illegal, they just say what it is.
They (SEC, Justice Dept., Senate Finance Committees) have realized what an enormous theft of wealth that has occurred. They don't know what to do about it. They can't very well explain to the American people that they have been ripped off.
The SEC refused to make all these naked shorts deliver because it would have caused too much "volatility". Shares that had been naked shorted into oblivion would have gone from say 5 cents to $100, if they were forced to deliver. The hell with the honest investor who lost all of his money, believing in the system.
This is a sorry mess. I fear that there will have to be some kind of market cataclysm for people to finally say enough is enough.
I believe that one's "indifference" to the current market conditions is inversely proportional to one's understanding of same.
triangle....Not to beat a dead horse, but I do think this is important: If IDCC had twice the number of shares, these "movements" in the share price would continue. It is the size of the market cap that attracts the manipulation. I.e., with a $2B MC, it only takes maybe $200M to "control" the share price. That is why the large caps are not subject, for the most part, to these tactics. IMO.
dmiller...First of all, Google, Berkshire and any stock over, say, a $5B market cap cannot be easily manipulated by the aforementioned means. With regard to a "double-edged sword", in a zero-sum game you would be correct. Unfortunately, with the current trading "rules", or lack thereof, the down-side edge of the sword is considerably sharper than the upside one. IMO.
triangle....While I agree that a stock split (I would prefer a 3 for 2 instead of a 2 for 1) would increase liquidity, these price movements have much more to do with manipulation, aided by market maker exemptions, lack of an uptick rule and lax requirements to deliver shorted stock, than any lack of liquidity. IMO.
badge...Essentially Mellon was the Investment Bank who sold the deal to broker, Barclays who sold it to.......???????? Could be one investor or many. I'd love to know.
badger....Although unlikely, it can't be dismissed. Is this what BM meant when he talked about "creative solutions"? Perhaps.
Very true. But, have you noticed that Cramer never makes short recommendations. I have it on good word that that is one of his conditions of employment. Bunch of whores. IMO.
So I guess with today being the closing of the recent offering, we will get an 8-K within 3 days. The big question is: will we learn who our new partner is?
More on the Google "stalking horse" win:
http://techcrunch.com/2011/04/04/google-makes-900-million-stalking-horse-bid-for-nortel-patents/
AMC....Yes, it is criminal how much BS there is. Unfortunately, the press is captured. They offer no help. Case in point, today on the CNBC home page there is an article entitled "Trader's Guide". It is the most pathetic, uninformative POS. (Waste some time and read it!) For those who endeavor to expose this sham, it is an uphill battle. But, we must keep keeping on. IMO.
AMC....Sorry, I gave the short answer. The long one is: the days to cover were originally conceived in order to give anyone interested an "order of magnitude" as to the degree of difficulty that may be encountered if all shorts were to cover. Of course it was meaningless then, when the market was a zero-sum game, so it's even more meaningless now that it isn't. IMO
None. Don't waste your time being confused. eom.
thanks OD......So we may or may not find out, in the near future, who our investors are. Other than 13-D I can't think of a regulation that would require disclosure. Can you?
IQ...I'm curious why the share price started to shoot up again at 11:15 this morning. Buyer stepping back in? Someone needs more shares before Monday?
I would add to that list of possibilities: 8.1M shorts looking for a way out!
pahek..a I thought Elop was from HP, no?
paheka.....Looks like your call on the continuation of the squeeze was a good one. Just starting a bit earlier than you thought.
Will the closing on the convert deal, on Monday, necessitate a 13-D filing? Alternatively, is it certain that we will learn the identity of the investor(s)?
My thinking is this: if there is only one investor, a 13-D is required if the amount of underlying shares in the converts (about 3M) are counted under the guidelines of a 13-D requirement, i.e. more than 5%. I am pretty sure the shares associated with the warrants do not qualify.
If the above is true, then 13-D's may not be required if there are more than one investor and none hold more than 5%.
Any input would be appreciated. I am curious if anyone has a definitive and logical reason to believe that we will necessarily learn who our new investor(s) is (are).
TIA
paheka...we can only hope! They have done the rope-a-dope for so long. Maybe this time will be different.
anyone... margin calls used to go out at 2:30 (when I was in the business). Is that still the case?? If we are nearing a squeeze, strength should happen about this time of day. JMO.
RMBSrider....Thanks for the clarification. Will the same be true of the warrants? Will they be for QIB's only? TIA.
rider...however, IDCC can always repurchase the bonds in the open market, just like they would the stock.
Are you sure about this? This was a private placement. Under certain conditions relative to Rule 144 they may be sold (and therefore a market created) after a holding period. As far as I can see, there will be no open market anytime soon for these securities. Unless, of course, I am missing something.
Jim, Od, IQ, Badger and others...Because I am a freeloading, cheap, non-paying member, this has to be my last post of the day.
Thanks to many who have the energy, desire and time to research the parameters of 144, the board has pretty much surrounded the implications of the private placement (144) that is the very welcome news of today.
These new investors may or may not be considered insiders. We do not yet know the degree to which they are privy to what is now on the table at IDCC, nor the accompanying ramifications. We possibly never will. The days immediately following the closing (April 4) may tell us; I don't know.
Suffice it to say, this is a new era for IDCC. I think we longs, with the exception of the normal unforeseen bumps in the road, can rest well. Thanks to all who contribute.
I don't know about this specific classification but 144 stock, in general, is given to insiders. (I believe there are different varieties of 144). In my own experience, a few decades ago I was given 144 stock in a company for which I became a non-employee representative. I was privy to non-public information. This stock had a 2-year holding period. This is why I felt stupid when you pointed out my mischaracterization of our new investors.
IQ...I think you are right. Hence the 144 classification. I.e, they are now "insiders". (duh, on my part)
Thanks.
eric...So does this mean whoever is entering into this deal knows something that hasn't been made public? Therefore, they are willing to take a "risk" on the stock price?
Not at all. It means they have done extensive due diligence and believe enough in the company and the appreciation of the SP that they are willing to be "locked up" for at least a year.
Jim...Yes, sometimes the market whispers and it's not always clear what it is saying. Not today, I can hear it loud and clear.
I believe we have finally reached that critical mass where the fundamentals can no longer be distorted or ignored. Thank you for being the leader and arbiter of this great board.
mister..The convertibles themselves are being sold under Rule 144 which precludes any sale for at least one year (there are some instances where it is 2 years, maybe OD can clarify). While it is not clear, from the news release, usually after the required time-frame they can be registered for sale, at which time a market may be made for them. As to the warrants, since they are tied to the underlying shares, I would imagine they fall under 144 also.
However, it may be that neither the converts nor warrants will ever trade. It depends upon how this deal is written. I have not seen anything in the release that addresses this. Perhaps, someone else has. I hope this helps.
Jim...best post of the long day. eom