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.
L2V, I called you on the hype you posted:
"On March 14, 2003 that 2G value train got back on track and there is a lot of catching up to do. Hundreds of millions this year according to the company. Buckle up and enjoy the ride!"
I will take your failure to defend your comment that the company claimed there will be "hundreds of millions" of dollars of 2G royalties for 2003 as admission that you can't support your claim with any facts. I thought so.
Once
Chowderhead, that's a quality post, I wouldn't delete it. It made me laugh and I don't even know much of anything about EDIG. Actually it was hilarious just in it's befuddled nature, top shelf humor.
Once
Art, you sure respond to my posts awfully quickly for someone who has me on ignore.
Once
Blueskywaves, I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish here but your repetitive arguments are getting really boring. It would be o.k. if you would actually address the many valid points that others have raised but you prefer to ignore these and argue the side issues.
Once
L2V, this sounds suspiciously like pumping:
"On March 14, 2003 that 2G value train got back on track and there is a lot of catching up to do. Hundreds of millions this year according to the company. Buckle up and enjoy the ride!"
Can you be more specific when you claim "hundreds of millions this year". I assume you are speaking of 2G revenues. I think you are grossly exaggerating but I'm willing to look at any evidence you may have to support that outlandish claim.
Once
Art, that's a bunch of bullschist and you know it. I didn't have anything to do with funding the shareholder Press Release today. Your suggestion that I did is based on absolutely nothing meaningful and borders on libel.
Why can't you just come to terms with the fact that some shareholders don't like the way IDCC insiders are steadily granting themselves the company, bit by bit and selling it off as they go? In my book that's a sure sign it is over-valued.
Once
Good point Mickey. If half of what people here say is true, IDCC has such a bright future that existing options would be enough to adequately compensate management for at least a decade or two.
Not that I believe those rumors.
Once
I don't think that's correct:
"Warren Buffet said find a good stock and hold on til you no longer beleive in it"
I believe Warren Buffet was well known for dumping stocks that had become over-valued.
Once
Badpump, thank-you for correcting the record. You are doing a great service to all those who want to base their decisions upon FACTS, not lies and distortions. BSW is trying so hard to make his case and resorting to such deceptive practices that one can only assume he stands to benefit greatly if management is granted their wish for more options. I can't believe everyone doesn't see right through his thinly veiled attempts to fool shareholders into voting against their best financial interests.
I hope everyone will join me in speaking out against excessive executive compensation. We may not win the vote but we can at least stand up for what we believe in!
Once
Jim, didn't IDCC and Schilling have a falling out a few years back?
"After all Schilling knows a great deal about IDCC's patents and if his new work could compliment or add to IDCC's patent portfolio."
BTW, thanks for the copy of the transcript.
Once
Teecee, sorry to burst your bubble but these chatrooms don't have any "clout" associated with them, LOL!
Once
Mschere, you are right, we do not know if fraud was involved in today's release or not. But we never know whether fraud is involved. Do you have evidence that it is? Why are you suspicious?
I would be more concerned that any potential fraud was instigated on managements behalf, the backlash effect. It's pretty obvious that management has a vested interest in insuring the extra options are approved and, so far, it appears to me this mornings press release has had the effect of changing more "no" votes to "yes" votes than vice a versa. That is in managements favor. Why do you assume the release was orchestrated by shorts? It's obvious such a release would have little impact on share prices but if it could convert more "no" votes to "yes" votes, that might be able to explain the effort that obviously went into this release.
Personally, I think the most likely explanation is the release is exactly what it purports to be, an effort to stop management from stealing away the company, bit by bit. I don't know why so many were so offended.
Once
Teecee, no one claimed to speak for all IDCC shareholders, why is that so hard for you to understand? The release clearly referred to a "group" of IDCC shareholders numerous times. Just what is your beef with that? Nobody spoke for anyone who wasn't a member of that group, which you clearly aren't so be quiet about it now.
"ANYBODY WILLING TO STAND UP AND TAKE CREDIT FOR TODAYS PR...let your fellow shareholders know who speaks for them"
Once
Osoesq, that's a pretty good post but I think you are being a little hard on management for the simple reason that they have to work with the IPR they are given. In other words, I do not believe IDCC's intellectual property is as strong or as valuable as it is often presented and for that reason any value that can be extracted from it is added value.
It's actually something I think the current management is quite good at. Does that mean IDCC will someday be worth a mint? Of course not, they can only do so much with what they have. Contrary to what seems to be the prevailing opinion around here, IDCC did not invent the cell-phone and all the popular standards. The fact that they contributed to the standards bodies means little, those are non-paying positions and the standards bodies have very little real authority or any enforcement ability.
So management has done a reasonably good job of extracting what value they could from IDCC's patents but they don't deserve to be given the entire company for doing their job. They are already compensated adequately. If the extra options are approved and then the stock stagnates a number of years in the teens or (heaven forbid) in the single digits, how will you feel about having granted all those options away?
Once
So you are in agreement with me that you cannot remember a request of IDCC management being rejected by shareholders, ever? That shareholders always vote the will of management?
I thought so.
Once
If people who think management is over-compensated are "small minded", then why do you refer to the options issue as "our dirty laundry"?
"laranger, there will always be small minds expressing jealous rage over management's salaries and perks. The problem here is that these ill-informed zealots took our dirty laundry public."
Once
Are you sure about this?
"Management has asked for a vote. If they get turned down, it won't be the first time."
I can't remember the last time the shareholders didn't vote the wishes of management. I'll go out on a limb and say that the shareholders have been in management's collective pocket as long as I can remember. Maybe not the individual shareholders but the fund managers and institutions hold a large percentage of the votes.
Please tell us, since you seem to know of a time when the vote went against managements wishes, just when was this?
Once
Thanks for the suggestion but that might detract from the amount of time I can spend here and I barely have enough as it is!
Maybe to counteract the "bad press", those shareholders who believe in a full piggy slop trough should sponsor their own shareholder initiative in support of management. It could authorize the splitting of the stock (2 for 1) except all the extra shares would be divided up between the managers (as they see fit) to recognize all the long-term value they have created, LOL!
Once
I can't believe you guys are upset that someone actually has the balls to stand up and represent your financial interests! The guy should be applauded, not criticized. One part of your post really stood out to me:
"Whatever you do don't sell your shares."
Why the heck not? Isn't that the whole reason for buying in the first place? To someday sell at a profit? They are not sacred you know.
Once
Perhaps, I suspect we will know more in time.
Once
I had a dream last night... iHub announced it was going to be bought out but the deal fell through at the 11th hour.
Once
Sounds like Sting...
Once
I don't think so:
"He may learn sufficient input regarding IDCC and its strength in CDMA2000 to get his feet wet with a BUY recommendation at $50 and target of $75!"
IDCC doesn't have any strength in CDMA2000, Qualcomm developed that without outside help from IDCC and IDCC already signed over the rights to their narrowband IPR (what little they had) in 94/95.
Where do you come up with these little gems?
Once
Ally, you can bet that representatives from those companies post here from time to time. And after reading all the people who are defending the excessive options request from management I can only conclude that IDCC has people here representing the interests of management. Why else would people argue so vigorously for so many extra options when there are already plenty to go around until at least next year. Perhaps management knows shareholders won't be feeling nearly so generous for some time to come so they better line up all their ducks now?
That sounds about right.
Once
Who said anything about IDCC being doomed? If I were you, I would concentrate more on the ones who are talking about IDCC ending up the year at twice the price. Anyone who has spent any time following the rhythms of this company knows it usually reaches a low near the end of the year or at the beginning of the next.
Come to think of it, I bet that's when new options are awarded to management. How convenient!
Once
Ally, if this is the short-squeeze that was so anticipated....well, all I can do is wonder what's going to support the price once all the shorts have covered?
The fact is, most people still don't think of IDCC as being an upstanding and innovative company unless your poll is limited to the iHub IDCC board members.
Once
Orientbull, we don't have a forward p/e anywhere near 2. Where did you come up with that? And with only one analyst publishing numbers, what makes you think his new numbers will be anymore accurate than his old numbers? It's almost as if he's thrown in there just to confuse those not in the loop.
Next thing you know he will probably increase his numbers to "compensate" for his big miss and then while the newbies are all buying based on the fantastic new estimates, those in the know will be selling to unsuspecting investors who have been told how great the company is. This sort of thing has been going on for decades! Why do you think it would be any different now?
Once
Wantobe, you sure know how to keep suspense levels high!
Once
You are the real comedian if you think I'm short. I have stated numerous times in the past year that IDCC is not a good stock too short because it has way too much upside potential, too much risk to make a good short. Do you really think I would short it after consistently saying it was a poor candidate for a short?
Give me a break!
Once
Yes, even I knew the $0.03 Carpenter estimate was way too low the way the earnings are front-loaded into the first quarter. If even negative old Once said the $0.03 was way too low, what was Tom Carpenter thinking? He must just be a pawn in this greedy scheme, else he would have had a realistic estimate, he's not stupid you know.
Once
Yarxxx, it's easy, just click on my alias and then click on the part that says "Hide this poster". Make sure you have your filters turned on.
Voilla!
Once
I'm glad I was able to help some see the light. The more people that vote "no" on options the stronger this company will be because the extra options only serve to dilute existing shares.
Once
Danny, in my opinion, these are the clear warning signs that a top is approaching:
"They truly do have momentum on their side .. momentum of their own creation in many respects. Their morale is high and infectious."
Just when you think everything is great is when it will all start to unravel. Mark my words.
Once
Mschere, let's not confuse the newbies and make giant assumptions here:
"Is there any doubt that IDCC will license all for 3G..and WHEN is not as important to INSTITUTIONS..as the fact that WHEN they inevitably license ..they will be paid for all past infringed product sales."
We don't know that everyone will become a licensee of IDCC for 3G and even if they did, we have no idea how low the rate would be. So don't go around acting like it's a done deal, it's not.
Once
Ams, my take on this is that Nokia/Samsung will not drag out that long. In fact, I expect it will be resolved surprisingly quickly. IDCC is full of surprises and I believe they will use news of successful Nokia/Samsung agreement to unload shares without crashing the price. Then, in the following months we will learn that it was not resolved on terms anywhere near what we have been expecting and the price will fall just in time for management to get issued new options.
I believe it's all just a setup and smart players will take advantage of it, not be blinded by all the positives. I assure you, IDCC is the same company they were last year, nothing has changed.
Once
Spider, do you care to elaborate on this "success going forward" that you speak of? Are you speaking of IDCC's future success and, if so, what do you base this on?
Once
Jean-Michel, you are welcome. BTW, I didn't answer your question about my shareholder status because I believed it to be rhetorical in nature since I have made my "no position" very clear.
I hope that helps,
Once
Jim, IDCC is NOT at a new high. The high was set in 2000 and is $82. For all we know, some shorts decided not to close out their position in the $4 range. Their short positions could still be wildly profitable at $26/share so you are jumping to conclusions when you state:
"The stock is at a new high so the short sellers went short below this price."
Just a little reality check before you get too carried away celebrating the new "high". If you want to qualify that and call it a new 3 year high then that's fine with me, but a new high, it's not.
Once
Indemnification is a HUGE issue for IDCC down the road, just wait and see. But the way management is trying to put the most positive spin on everything this morning I anticipate they will not want to discuss this or they will try to brush it off as business as normal.
Once
Spider, look at the volume, almost 1.5 million shares in the first hour and yet the price has only risen 6%, Now that's a nice rise but not in proportion to the number of shares traded. This means someone is selling hard into this rise. We've seen this sort of behavior before with IDCC and I think in the coming weeks you will see what I'm talking about.
Once