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.
LMU,
You are quit right,I m not aiming at SMME .
I m still puzzled about the news release.
The company only raised 600k through Halcyon. It is hard to believe that all the company needed was 600.000 to start production of the keyring.
Maybe there is a good explanation but I just can t find it.
R.
Thanks LMU
Have to correct one thing. The autor was postyle , not Mike 2005.
Added this post to balance out the initial article.
Following passage is worth a highlight:
Overall, we believe that the White House is aiming to introduce more transparency into the patent licensing market and seeking to curb abusive practices by owners of low quality patents, which we think are positive for the industry and patent-related names under our coverage.
Would be very welcome if smarrtmetric releases keyring
Add on to my latest post
I am borrowing this article posted on the VRNG forum by Mike 2005
Speaking of the WSJ article and the White House press release... here's an update from Barclays that sort of (at least IMHO) mirrors what I wrote last night about the targets of this action.
BARCLAYS: Patent Licensing Stocks Trade Lower on White House Press Release; Sell-Off Likely Overdone
Shares of patent licensing stocks are trading lower today as a result of a press release issued by the White House, which issued five executive actions and seven legislative recommendations around patent litigation (see “Fact Sheet: White House Task Force on High-Tech Patent Issues”). Overall, we believe that the White House is aiming to introduce more transparency into the patent licensing market and seeking to curb abusive practices by owners of low quality patents, which we think are positive for the industry and patent-related names under our coverage. While we continue to watch for further ramifications and/or the scope of potential legislation, we think that the recommendations/executive actions are relatively neutral to ACTG, IDCC and RPXC, and as such, view the sell-off in shares as likely overdone.
As it relates to ACTG specifically, we believe the stock is reacting to certain recommendations around transparency (requiring the ultimate parent company in control of the patent to be clear to the defendant) and the use of the ITC for patent-related litigation decisions. We point out that: 1) ACTG’s use of subsidiaries is merely to keep portfolios in separate entities (given the differences in partners/stakeholders, capitalization, accounting, etc. between entities) and Acacia always discloses that it is the parent company; 2) ACTG generally does not rely on the ITC (which the company has used only once and believes was done with a very high quality patent portfolio asserted against a foreign company); and 3) historical evidence suggests that legislation around patent reform has had minimal impact on larger, well-capitalized patent licensing companies. That said, we continue to look for greater visibility with respect to the timing and amount of ACTG’s future revenue prospects in order to point to geater upside from current levels. We maintain our Equal Weight rating.
The legislative measures that The White House is recommending include: 1) requiring patentees/applicants to disclose the “Real Party-in-Interest”; 2) permitting greater authority to district courts to award attorneys' fees as a sanction for abusive court filings; 3) expanding the USPTO’s transitional program for covered business method patents; 4) protecting “off-the-shelf” use for consumers and businesses; 5) modifying the ITC standard for obtaining an injunction (to bring in line with the decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, which essentially ruled that NPEs are no longer entitled to injunctions); 6) using demand letter transparency (to make more accessible/searchable by the public); and 7) ensuring the ITC has the flexibility needed to hire qualified Administrative Law Judges.
Thanks HS for your analyses.
Just came across an article that might through a spanner in the legal patent infringement lawsuit.
Obama Issues Patent Order to Combat Owners Called Trolls
By Margaret Talev & Susan Decker - Jun 5, 2013 6:31 AM ET
White House Cracks Down on `Patent Trolls'
President Barack Obama announced a series of actions aimed at protecting technology, finance and retail companies from lawsuits and demands for fees by businesses that abuse the patent system.
Enlarge image Obama Orders Patent Changes to Combat Owners Called Trolls
White House press secretary Jay Carney holds up a folder with an image of a troll and the words "innovation, not litigation" during the daily press briefing at the White House in Washington, on June 4, 2013. Photographer: Evan Vucci/AP Photo
Enlarge image Obama Orders Patent Changes to Combat Owners Called Trolls
Patent inventor index files are seen at the public search facility of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Virginia. Photographer: Christopher Powers/Bloomberg
The crackdown on what critics have called “patent trolls” includes five executive actions and seven recommendations that require congressional action. A White House commission report said more than 100,000 companies were threatened with infringement last year by patent-assertion entities -- companies whose sole business is to obtain patents and use them to obtain royalties from businesses that make or use products and services.
The announcement formalizes changes that have been considered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, including making patent owners and applicants identify who benefits financially from the patent and improving application examinations. It also backs some legislation sponsored by members of both parties in Congress.
“The strong support by the White House adds to the strong bipartisan support that reining in abusive patent litigation shares,” said Kevin Richards, senior vice president of TechAmerica, a Washington-based lobbying group representing technology companies. “Reforming the patent system to end frivolous lawsuits by bad actors will enhance the innovation ecosystem.”
Shares Drop
Shares of companies that rely on patent litigation and licensing fell in New York trading.
Acacia Research Corp. (ACTG), which got all of its $250.7 million in revenue last year from patent licensing, fell $1.26, or 5 percent, to $23.87 at 4 p.m. VirnetX Holding Corp. (VHC), which won a $368 million verdict against Apple Inc. only to lose against Cisco Systems Inc., fell 90 cents, or 3.8 percent, to $23.10. Vringo Inc. (VRNG), awarded $30 million in a case against Google Inc. and its customers, fell 10 cents or 3.2 percent, to $3.07.
Paul Ryan, chief executive officer of Newport Beach, California-based Acacia, said his company favors or is neutral on almost all of Obama’s provisions.
“There are abusive litigation tactics and we’re all for cleaning them up,” Ryan said. “It tarnishes our reputation. We’re in the transaction business, not the litigation business.”
Abusive patent lawsuits are a growing drain on companies and the court system, though not all businesses that own patents without making products are “trolls,” according to a report released today by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, the National Economic Council and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Draining Companies
The pejorative term troll often is used to cover anyone that doesn’t make a product, which can lump in research firms, independent inventors and universities, said Tim Schnurr, a senior vice president at ICAP Plc, which runs the world’s largest patent brokerage. Sweeping patent legislation passed in 2011 has begun to weed out some of the worst abuses, he said.
“It’s clearly lobbying coming from companies that are intellectual-property light rather than intellectual-property heavy,” Schnurr said. “It’s not very easy as an inventor to get paid for your technology. No company will simply pay an inventor. The only way to get paid is to hire a lawyer and sue.”
Royalty Letters
Key provisions seek to help businesses receiving letters demanding royalties for the use of products, such as scanning documents so they can be sent via e-mail, providing Wi-Fi services to customers and tracking customer shipments. The National Retail Federation has reported a number of lawsuits designed to get companies to either pay the patent owner or spend large amounts of money in litigation.
The patent office plans to educate retailers and end users of technology about their rights. Among the legislative proposals are ones that would provide better legal protection against liability for users of common products, make royalty demand letters public and give courts more discretion to sanction those who file abusive suits.
“The United States patent system is vital for our economic growth, job creation, and technological advance,” said Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat who heads the Senate Judiciary Committee. “Unfortunately, misuse of low-quality patents through patent trolling has tarnished the system’s image.”
‘Bad Faith’
Vermont last month became the first state to allow the targets of demand letters to sue over a “bad faith assertion of patent infringement.” The state Attorney General filed a consumer-protection lawsuit against one company that had sent letters to hundreds of businesses.
With many of the lawsuits being over software, the president directed the patent office to more closely monitor applications to ensure they don’t claim a broad use of technology. One proposal backed by the White House also would expand a new review program for finance-related business methods to also include computer-implemented technology.
“When responsible actors increasingly find themselves at the mercy of those abusing the patent system, decisive steps must be taken to protect small business innovation,” said Morgan Reed, executive director of the Association for Competitive Technology, a lobbying group for application developers.
To contact the reporters on this story: Margaret Talev in Washington at mtalev@bloomberg.net; Susan Decker in Washington at sdecker1@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Bernard Kohn at bkohn2@bloomberg.net
SHINER,
Please be as honest as you can be. I sold some shares and had some work done to prepare for the BIG day.
Will she like it?
PS You can t see my teeth but believe me , they will impress.
UNITED STATES OF AUSTRALIA ?
LMU,
Surprised you can t find it. Just not your day, nothing else :)
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=news&symbol=NO^SMME&user=226590×tamp=1370289735&tag=ACE5524F87E03CA2F08C693D092744D946E6C83F
It s the very latest news release
Mutual Fund Summary Prospectus (497k)
Date : 05/31/2013 @ 12:49PM
Source : Edgar (US Regulatory)
Stock : Smartmetric, Inc. (QB) (SMME)
Quote : 0.44 0.0 (0.00%) @ 5:32AM
Mutual Fund Summary Prospectus (497k)
Print
Alert
INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT
Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund, Inc.
Select Global Infrastructure Portfolio
Summary Prospectus
April 30, 2013, as supplemented on May 31, 2013
Class:
I
Ticker Symbol:
MTIIX
P
MTIPX
H
MTIHX
L
MTILX
Before you invest, you may want to review the Portfolio's statutory prospectus ("Prospectus"), which contains more information about the Portfolio and its risks. You can find the Portfolio's Prospectus and other information about the Portfolio, including the Statement of Additional Information ("SAI") and the most recent annual and semiannual reports to shareholders, online at www.morganstanley.com/im . You can also get this information at no cost by calling toll-free 1-866-414-6349 or by sending an e-mail request to orders@mysummaryprospectus.com . The Portfolio's Prospectus and SAI, both dated April 30, 2013, as may be supplemented from time to time, are incorporated by reference into this Summary Prospectus.
Objective
The Select Global Infrastructure Portfolio seeks to provide both capital appreciation and income.
Fees and Expenses
The table below describes the fees and expenses that you may pay if you buy and hold shares of the Portfolio. For shareholders of Class P and Class H shares, you may qualify for sales charge discounts if the cumulative net asset value ("NAV") of Class P or Class H shares of the Portfolio purchased in a single transaction, together with the NAV of all Class P or Class H shares of portfolios of Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund, Inc. (the "Fund") or portfolios of Morgan Stanley Institutional Fund Trust held in related accounts, amounts to $25,000 or more with respect to Class P and $50,000 or more with respect to Class H. More information about these and other discounts is available from your financial adviser and in the "Shareholder Information—How To Purchase Class P and Class H Shares" section on page 62 of the Prospectus.
Shareholder Fees (fees paid directly from your investment)
Class I
Class P
Class H
Class L
Maximum sales charge (load)
imposed on purchases (as a
percentage of offering price)
None
5.25
%
4.75
%
None
Annual Portfolio Operating Expenses (expenses that you pay each year as a percentage of the value of your investment)
Class I
Class P
Class H
Class L
Advisory Fee
0.85
%
0.85
%
0.85
%
0.85
%
Distribution and/or Shareholder
Service (12b-1) Fee
None
0.25
%
0.25
%
0.75
%
Other Expenses
1.54
%
1.54
%
1.54
%
1.54
%
Total Annual Portfolio
Operating Expenses*
2.39
%
2.64
%
2.64
%
3.14
%
Fee Waiver and/or Expense
Reimbursement*
1.24
%
1.24
%
1.24
%
1.24
%
Total Annual Portfolio
Operating Expenses After Fee
Waiver and/or Expense
Reimbursement*
1.15
%
1.40
%
1.40
%
1.90
%
Example
The example below is intended to help you compare the cost of investing in the Portfolio with the cost of investing in other mutual funds.
The example assumes that you invest $10,000 in the Portfolio, your investment has a 5% return each year and that the Portfolio's operating expenses remain the same. Although your actual costs may be higher or lower, based on these assumptions your costs would be:
1 Year
3 Years
5 Years
10 Years
Class I
$
117
$
365
$
633
$
1,398
Class P
$
660
$
945
$
1,251
$
2,117
Class H
$
611
$
897
$
1,204
$
2,075
Class L
$
193
$
597
$
1,026
$
2,222
* The Portfolio's "Adviser," Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc., has agreed to reduce its advisory fee and/or reimburse the Portfolio so that Total Annual Portfolio Operating Expenses, excluding certain investment related expenses, taxes, interest and other extraordinary expenses (including litigation), will not exceed 1.15% for Class I, 1.40% for Class P, 1.40% for Class H and 1.90% for Class L. The fee waivers and/or expense reimbursements will continue for at least one year or until such time as the Fund's Board of Directors acts to discontinue all or a portion of such waivers and/or reimbursements when it deems such action is appropriate.
Portfolio Turnover
The Portfolio pays transaction costs when it buys and sells securities (or "turns over" its portfolio). A higher portfolio turnover rate may indicate higher transaction costs and may result in higher taxes when Portfolio shares are held in a taxable account. These costs, which are not reflected in Total Annual Portfolio Operating
Expenses or in the Example, affect Portfolio performance. During the most recent fiscal year, the Portfolio's portfolio turnover rate was 33% of the average value of its portfolio.
Principal Investment Strategies
The Portfolio normally invests at least 80% of its assets in equity securities issued by companies located throughout the world that are engaged in the infrastructure business. A company is considered to be in the infrastructure business if it derives at least 50% of its revenues or earnings from, or devotes at least 50% of its assets to, infrastructure-related activities. Infrastructure refers to the systems and networks of energy, transportation, communication and other services required for the normal function of society. Companies in the infrastructure business may be involved in a variety of areas, including, but not limited to, (i) the transmission, distribution, storage or transportation of electricity, oil and gas (and other bulk liquid products), water, and other natural resources used to produce energy, (ii) the construction and operation of renewable power facilities, (iii) the development, ownership, lease, concession, or management of highways, toll roads, tunnels, bridges, pipelines, airports, marine ports, refueling and related facilities, (iv) the provision of communications, including the development, lease, concession, or management of telephone, broadcast and mobile towers, fiber optic/copper cable, and satellite networks, (v) waste-water management and water purification/desalination and (vi) the construction or operation of essential public structures. The Portfolio's equity investments may include convertible securities. The Portfolio's investments may include securities of small and medium capitalization companies. The Portfolio may invest up to 100% of its net assets in foreign securities, which may include emerging market securities. Under normal market conditions, the Portfolio invests at least 40% of its assets in the securities of issuers located outside of the United States.
The Portfolio's Adviser and/or "Sub-Advisers," Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited ("MSIM Limited") and Morgan Stanley Investment Management Company ("MSIM Company"), shift the Portfolio's assets between the different types of companies in the infrastructure business described above based on relative valuation, underlying company fundamentals, and demographic and macroeconomic considerations. The Portfolio has a fundamental policy (i.e., one that cannot be changed without shareholder approval) of investing 25% or more of its assets in the infrastructure industry.
In selecting securities to buy, hold or sell for the Portfolio, the Adviser and/or Sub-Advisers actively manage the Portfolio using a combination of bottom-up and top-down methodologies. The value-driven approach to bottom-up security selection utilizes proprietary research models to identify infrastructure companies that offer the best value relative to their underlying assets and growth prospects. The top-down allocation provides exposure to major economic infrastructure sectors and countries, with an overweighting to those sectors/countries that offer the best relative valuation. The Adviser and/or Sub-Advisers generally consider selling a portfolio holding when it determines that the holding no longer satisfies its investment criteria.
Principal Risks
There is no assurance that the Portfolio will achieve its investment objective and you can lose money investing in this Portfolio. The principal risks of investing in the Portfolio include:
• Infrastructure Industry. By concentrating its investments in the infrastructure industry, the Portfolio has greater exposure to the potential adverse economic, regulatory, political and other changes affecting companies operating within such industry. Companies within the infrastructure industry are subject to a variety of factors that may adversely affect their business or operations, including high interest costs in connection with capital construction and improvement programs, high leverage, costs associated with compliance with and changes in environmental and other regulations, difficulty in raising capital in adequate amounts and on reasonable terms in periods of high inflation and unsettled capital markets or government budgetary constraints that impact publicly funded projects, the effects of economic slowdown or recession and surplus capacity, increased competition from other providers of services, uncertainties concerning the availability of fuel at reasonable prices, the effects of energy conservation policies and other factors.
Other factors that may affect the operations of companies within the infrastructure industry include innovations in technology that could render the way in which a company delivers a product or service obsolete, significant changes to the number of ultimate end-users of a company's products, inexperience with and potential losses resulting from a developing deregulatory environment, increased susceptibility to terrorist attacks, risks of environmental damage due to a company's operations or an accident, and general changes in market sentiment towards infrastructure and utilities assets. Companies operating in the infrastructure industry face operating risks, including the risk of fire, explosions, leaks, mining and drilling accidents or other catastrophic events. In addition, natural risks, such as earthquakes, floods, lightning, hurricanes, tsunamis and wind, are inherent risks in infrastructure company operations.
• Equity Securities. In general, prices of equity securities are more volatile than those of fixed income securities. The prices of equity securities fluctuate, and sometimes widely fluctuate, in response to activities specific to the issuer of the security as well as factors unrelated to the fundamental condition of the issuer, including general market, economic and political conditions. To the extent that the Portfolio invests in convertible securities, and the convertible security's investment value is greater than its conversion value, its price will be likely to increase when interest rates fall and decrease when interest rates rise. If the conversion value exceeds the investment value, the price of the convertible security will tend to fluctuate directly with the price of the underlying equity security.
• Small and Medium Capitalization Companies. Investments in small and medium capitalization companies may involve greater risks than investments in larger, more established companies. The securities issued by small and medium capitalization companies may be less liquid, and such companies may have more limited markets, financial resources and product lines, and may lack the depth of management of larger companies.
• Foreign and Emerging Market Securities. Investments in foreign markets entail special risks such as currency, political,
2
economic and market risks. There also may be greater market volatility, less reliable financial information, higher transaction and custody costs, decreased market liquidity and less government and exchange regulation associated with investments in foreign markets. In addition, investments in certain foreign markets, which have historically been considered stable, may become more volatile and subject to increased risk due to ongoing developments and changing conditions in such markets. Moreover, the growing interconnectivity of global economies and financial markets has increased the probability that adverse developments and conditions in one country or region will affect the stability of economies and financial markets in other countries or regions. The risks of investing in emerging market countries are greater than risks associated with investments in foreign developed countries. In addition, the Portfolio's investments may be denominated in foreign currencies and therefore, to the extent unhedged, the value of the investment will fluctuate with the U.S. dollar exchange rates.
• Non-Diversification. Because the Portfolio is non-diversified, it may be more susceptible to an adverse event affecting a portfolio investment than a diversified portfolio and a decline in the value of that instrument would cause the Portfolio's overall value to decline to a greater degree.
Shares of the Portfolio are not bank deposits and are not guaranteed or insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency.
Performance Information
The bar chart and table below provide some indication of the risks of investing in the Portfolio by showing changes in the Portfolio's Class I shares' performance from year-to-year and by showing how the Portfolio's average annual returns for the past one year period and since inception compare with those of a broad measure of market performance, as well as a comparative sector index, over time. The performance of the other Classes, which is shown in the table below, will differ because the Classes have different ongoing fees. The Portfolio's returns in the table include the maximum applicable sales charge for Class P and Class H and assume you sold your shares at the end of each period (unless otherwise noted). The Portfolio's past performance, before and after taxes, is not necessarily an indication of how the Portfolio will perform in the future. Updated performance information is available online at www.morganstanley.com/im .
Annual Total Returns—Calendar Years
High Quarter
12/31/11
11.15
%
Low Quarter
9/30/11
–6.54
%
Average Annual Total Returns
(for the calendar periods ended December 31, 2012)
Past
One Year Since
Inception
Class I (commenced operations on 9/20/10)
Return before Taxes
18.21
%
17.29
%
Return after Taxes on Distributions
17.59
%
16.51
%
Return after Taxes on Distributions and Sale of
Portfolio Shares
13.29
%
14.86
%
Class P † (commenced operations on 9/20/10)
Return before Taxes
11.64
%
14.26
%
Class H (commenced operations on 9/20/10)
Return before Taxes
12.26
%
14.48
%
Class L (commenced operations on 9/20/10)
Return before Taxes
17.31
%
16.42
%
Dow Jones Brookfield Global Infrastructure
Index SM (reflects no deduction for fees,
expenses or taxes) 1
16.01
%
15.90
%
S&P Global BMI Index (reflects no
deduction for fees, expenses or taxes) 2
17.15
%
8.25
%
† The historical performance of Class P shares has been restated to reflect the current maximum initial sales charge of 5.25%.
1 The Dow Jones Brookfield Global Infrastructure Index SM is a float-adjusted market capitalization weighted index that measures the stock performance of companies that exhibit strong infrastructure characteristics. The Index intends to measure all sectors of the infrastructure market. It is not possible to invest directly in an index.
2 The Standard & Poor's Global BMI Index (S&P Global BMI Index) is a broad market index designed to capture exposure to equities in all countries in the world that meet minimum size and liquidity requirements. As of the date of the Prospectus, there are approximately 11,000 index members representing 26 developed and 20 emerging market countries. It is not possible to invest directly in an index.
The after-tax returns shown in the table above are calculated using the historical highest individual federal marginal income tax rates during the period shown and do not reflect the impact of state and local taxes. After-tax returns for the Portfolio's other Classes will vary from Class I shares' returns. Actual after-tax returns depend on the investor's tax situation and may differ from those shown, and after-tax returns are not relevant to investors who hold their Portfolio shares through tax deferred arrangements such as 401(k) plans or individual retirement accounts. After-tax returns may be higher than before-tax returns due to an assumed benefit from capital losses that would have been realized had Portfolio shares been sold at the end of the relevant periods, as applicable.
Fund Management
Adviser. Morgan Stanley Investment Management Inc.
Sub-Advisers. Morgan Stanley Investment Management Limited and Morgan Stanley Investment Management Company.
3
Portfolio Managers. The Portfolio is managed by members of the Global Infrastructure Securities team. Information about the members jointly and primarily responsible for the day-to-day management of the Portfolio is shown below:
Name
Title with
Adviser Date Began
Managing Portfolio
Theodore R. Bigman
Managing Director
September 2010
Matthew King
Executive Director
September 2010
Purchase and Sale of Portfolio Shares
The minimum initial investment generally is $5,000,000 for Class I shares, $25,000 for Class H shares and $1,000 for each of Class P and Class L shares of the Portfolio. The minimum initial investment may be waived for certain investments. For more information, please refer to the "Shareholder Information—Minimum Investment Amounts" section beginning on page 61 of the Prospectus.
Class I and Class L shares of the Portfolio may be purchased or sold on any day the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") is open for business directly from the Fund by mail (c/o Morgan Stanley Services Company Inc., P.O. Box 219804, Kansas City, MO 64121-9804) or by telephone (1-800-548-7786) or by contacting your authorized financial intermediary. For more information, please refer to the "Shareholder Information—How To Purchase Class I and Class L Shares" and "—How To Redeem Shares—Class I and Class L Shares" sections beginning on pages 62 and 65, respectively, of the Prospectus.
Class P and Class H shares of the Portfolio may be purchased or redeemed by contacting your authorized financial intermediary. For more information, please refer to the "Shareholder Information—How To Purchase Class P and Class H Shares" and "—How To Redeem Shares—Class P and Class H Shares" sections beginning on pages 62 and 65, respectively, of the Prospectus.
Tax Information
The Portfolio intends to make distributions that may be taxed as ordinary income or capital gains, unless you are investing through a tax-deferred arrangement, such as a 401(k) plan or an individual retirement account.
Payments to Broker-Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries
If you purchase the Portfolio through a broker-dealer or other financial intermediary (such as a bank), the Adviser and/or the Portfolio's "Distributor," Morgan Stanley Distribution, Inc., may pay the financial intermediary for the sale of Portfolio shares and related services. These payments, which may be significant in amount, may create a conflict of interest by influencing the broker-dealer or other financial intermediary and your salesperson to recommend the Portfolio over another investment. Ask your salesperson or visit your broker-dealer's or other financial intermediary's web site for more information.
SU-MSIF-21 5/13
Potts, It was your old post I was referring to, where you mentioned the steps of the courthouse.
It is all quite likely what you write might happen.
I am still puzzled why both Visa and Mastercard still have not made a mention of the lawsuit. Worst case for them is losing money and risking a shareholders class action.
I m happy it s not my problem.
All ' Lucky Country' shareholders should have an extra reason to smile namely the depreciation of the A$.Let s hope we will see 80 cents again sometime in the not to distant future.
R.
SHINER,
Excellent questions and can t understand why that post was removed.
I had one post removed myself and if I recall, it was a very innocent comment on LNMs position where I probably complemented him on the direction but where I mentioned that he still needed some work done on his trading skills.
Reading Chaya s post , it seems that she has to adhere to strict guidelines of what she can say and what she can t .
At least she tries to keep us as much explanation and help as she can and I don t t think we can t expect for more.
She has no obligation at all to all this for us.
The cap raising by Halcyon was disappointing and I agree with Corey that the price rise in the last 3 to 4 months has been quite remarkable .
The " I wish" comment from Chaya appears to indicate that there are developments. I wish I knew what they were but a steady support for the share price suggest that it can t be all that bad.
N&B, a positive outcome of the patent infringement issue would be great but it would not result in the company receiving money anytime soon.
If it gets to a settlement, it will probably only happen the day the trial starts as has been suggested by a contributor some time ago . If it goes to trial , a favourite verdict for Smartmetric is most likely to be appealed ( Chaya mentioned somethng along those lines in the CC in March) and result will only be known around yearend.
It is good policy, so I see it, that the company gets on with its business and does not put itself in a position where it is reliant on a good outcome of the courtcase.
One scenario I thought off which could be an interesting one is if one of the parties feels like settling the matter and the other does not.
But Patrick Bright , professional and experienced as he is, will probably have anticipated a way of dealing with such scenario.
Anyway, 3 weeks to June 24 and just over 3 months to trial, when is the rest of the world going to take notice of this case?
Exciting times, fingers crossed.
R.
HS,
What you are saying is more or less what I hope for. News on production and the way forward before June 24.
Although I don t have much of a clue about legal issues and certainly not about complex ones like patent infringement issues ( Much appreciate Chaya s efforts though to keep us up to date ),
I like Chaya s choice of lawyer, Patrick Bright. His risks is, not only losing the case, but also losing all the money he has invested in this case. If he wins, he will pick up a good reward.
Compare that to the lawyers of the defendants. What is their risk? Nothing compared to what Patrick Bright is willing to risk.What is their reward? Nothing compared to what Patrick Bright will receive in case of a win.
Just my little thought of the day :)
R
SHINER&LMU
Unus pro omnibus, omnes pro uno
LMU,
Your wish is my command
Periodontist .. appointment booked for a gum lift
Zip Zip Wax.... appointment booked for a body wax
Dentist ... teeth whitening procedure booked.
I am all excited, hope you are ready for the NEW me.
R.
SHINER,
It's obvious, it's not about my wealth but about my " Physique" .
I have a creative side so I thought I'd impress her with a poem !
Feel free to advice before I surprise her.
The Beauty Of A Man
The beauty of a man
isn't in the clothes he wears,
The figure that he carries,
or the way he combs his hair.
The beauty of a man
must be seen from in his eyes;
Because that's the doorway to his heart,
the place where love resides.
The beauty of a man
isn't in a facial mole;
But true beauty in a man,
is reflected by his soul.
It's the caring that he cares to give,
the passion that he shows;
And the beauty of a man
with passing years only grows.
Dear Chaya,
Your hands might be tied but you sound pretty upbeat :)
I still love the story and I am still very very happy that I invested in your company.
Wish you well and hope your endless effort to get the company to where it is today will make you an absolute motza
Ranger
Marvins message
No news on production
No news on cap raising
No news on infringement
But..... a very steady appetite for Smarmetric shares
Potts,
To me, Chaya comes across as a woman who, if she puts her mind to something, will make it happen and leave spiderman gasping for air on her way up.
I am looking forward to lots of excitement in the months ahead and can t complain about the strengthening US dollar vs all major currencies .
Enjoy
R
HI LMU,
I love heights , it relaxes me.
In my pastime I do a bit of climbing to chill.
Highstakes,
I would put your question to Daniel Ravicher . He is an expert in the field and has good insight in the current legal case between SMME and V/M
http://seekingalpha.com/author/daniel-b-ravicher
Good luck
R.
LMU,
That is how I read it too.
Price action does not support LNM s views. Having said that all market participants might be wrong :)
Less than 4 months to trial now, the clock is ticking.
R.
N&B
IMO a settlement could be the preferred outcome.
If you strip all noise they make about Chaya and the damages claim than it still comes down to a a patent that was infringed.
R.
Dear Chaya,
You got Little Miss Understood... roaring, Shiner.. glowing and you got me thinking.
In the documents presented by the defendants lots of attention was given to the damages claims.
I see that as a positive as it gives the impression that the infringement of the patent is seen as a fait accompli.
Do the defendants think that they can infringe on a patent without paying any damages or royalties?
Such ruling would open up a can of worms IMO.
I don t have any expert knowledge of legal matters but this is the way it comes across to me ( and hopefully to members of a jury if it gets to that stage).
R.
Thanks for that info sch100.
Very surprised that this info has not yet turned up on Visa and MC boards.
Very cold shower for those investors after recent good numbers.
R.
13.4 billion, now we are talking
LMU, Beluga Caviar in massive quantities. Shiner we do the talking to the parentals
R.
Shiner,
Help, I need it badly at this stage. Have discussed the issue with my parents and as you might or might not be aware, Miss U and I probably come from different cultural backgrounds.
Can you negotiate a dowry with Mis U s parents . I m thinking sheep, or if you have better ideas , please let me know.
R.
PS I might get ahead of myself but this is the first time in 70 years that someone has shown genuine interest . Makes me very nervous as you might imagine.
Thanks for your supporting words of wisdom Shiner
LMU made mention of a valid point about Smartmetric not getting a mention in Visa s Q10.
My advice to Visa and MC investors would be to hedge their position by buying into Smartmetric before the legal issue hits the newswires. :)
Could be an interesting time ahead.
R.
Jeeez LMU,
You are less subtle than I imagened you to be but I got the message and work harder on my dance style.
R.
LMU,
I am fit, young and ... well see for yourself
LMU, you are spot on.
I just didn t do my homework well enough. Mysterious why V/MC don t make a mention of the case. As you mentioned before, it can have huge ramifications.
I have continued to add to my holding in the company.
Looking forward to next weeks/months.
R.
Dear LMU,
The only reason I can think of why V/MC haven t reported it , is that SMME has not outlined how much they are claiming in damages and ongoing royalties.
Is SMME waiting for the Judge to decide if their patent is or is not infringed before they make their claim? Patrick Bright will have all the answers I guess.
Not long before the trial starts , if it ever gets to that stage :)
R.
This should make us happy
Bring on the trial by " the 12 good Citizens of California "
Visa's Earnings Shine, Raises Outlook - Analyst Blog
Print
Visa Inc.’s (V) fiscal second-quarter (ended Mar 31, 2013) operating earnings of $1.92 per Class A common share were modestly ahead of the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.81. Additionally, the result substantially exceeded the prior-year quarter earnings of $1.60 per share.
Net income increased 17.2% to $1.27 billion from $1.08 billion in the year-ago quarter. Including a deferred tax adjustment, reported net income in the year-ago quarter stood at $1.29 billion or $1.91 per share.
Alongside, total operating revenues for the reported quarter were $2.96 billion, up 14.7% year over year and outpaced the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $2.85 billion. Growth was driven by strong performance across most segments.
Service revenues increased 10.3% year over year to $1.37 billion and are recognized based on payments volume in the prior quarter. All other revenue categories are recognized based on the current quarter activity. Data processing revenues spiked 24.7% over the prior-year period to $1.15 billion.
Additionally, International transaction revenues, which are driven by cross-border payments volume, climbed 13.4% over the prior-year quarter to $831 million. Other revenues, earned through Visa Europe’s licensing fee, were $175 million, slipping from $179 million in the year-ago quarter. Client incentives, which are a contra-revenue item, came in at $567 million, and accounted for 16% of gross revenue.
On a constant dollar basis, payment volume increased 9% year over year to $1.0 trillion. Total processed transactions carrying the VisaNet brand increased 6% year over year to 13.9 billion. Cross border volume, on a constant dollar basis, grew 10% over the prior-year quarter.
However, total operating expenses jumped 13% year over year to $1.1 billion. Subsequently, Visa’s operating income grew 15.8% to $1.86 billion versus $1.61 billion in the year-ago period.
Financial Update
As of Mar 31, 2012, cash and cash equivalents and available-for-sale investment securities amounted to $4.4 billion, down from $5.4 billion as of Sep 30, 2012. Nevertheless, long-term debt remained nil.
Total shareholder equity was recorded at $26.9 billion, down from $27.63 billion as of Sep 30, 2012. Further, Visa’s operating cash outflow stood at $1.18 billion at the end of Mar 2013 against operating cash inflow of $2.34 billion recorded at the end of Mar 2012.
Stock Update
During the reported quarter, Visa repurchased about 12.0 million class A common shares for a total cost of $1.8 billion.
In Feb 2013, the board sanctioned a new share repurchase program worth $1.75 billion, which is set to expire by Jan 2014. Currently, the company has $1.0 billion available for repurchases.
Guidance
Visa revised the financial outlook for fiscal 2013, anticipating the annual operating earnings per share to grow about 20% from the prior estimate of high-teens range. Annual net revenue growth is expected in the low double-digits range. The company estimated annual operating margin of about 60% and capital expenditure within $425–475 million.
Further, Visa expects client incentives within the range of 16–17% of gross revenue and marketing expenses to be less than $1.0 billion. Meanwhile, tax rate is expected within 30–32%. Visa continues to project annual free cash flow of about $6 billion. This includes tax benefits to be realized during fiscal 2013 related to non-recurring litigation escrow payments of approximately $4.4 billion that was made during the fiscal first quarter.
Dividend Update
On Apr 24, 2013, the board of Visa declared a quarterly dividend of 33 cents per share of class A common stock, which will be paid on Jun 4, 2013, to the company’s common shareholders of record as on May 17, 2013.
On Mar 5, 2013, Visa paid a quarterly dividend of 33 cents per share to the company’s common shareholders of record as on Feb 15, 2013. In Oct 2012, Visa declared a 50% hike in its quarterly dividend to 33 cents per share from the prior 22 cents.
Others
Concurrently, arch rival MasterCard Inc. (MA) reported first-quarter 2013 operating earnings per share of $6.23, which comfortably surpassed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $6.19 and the year-ago quarter’s earnings of $5.36 as well. Improved top line and modest growth in operating expenses supported the growth in margins, bottom line and cash flow.
Both Visa and MasterCard carry a Zacks Rank #3 (Hold). Other strong performers in the financial sector include Employers Holdings Inc. (EIG) and Stancorp Financial Group Inc. (SFG), both of which carry a Zacks Rank #1 (Strong Buy).
After market trade
Good to see that someone bought 40.000 shares @ 40 cents.
Talking about intellectual property
Seeking Alpha
I Wish I Traded IP Stocks Like Hudson Bay
Apr 30 2013, 08:18 | 13 comments | includes: AAPL, AOL, IDCC, MARA.OB, SPEX, VHC, VRNG, WDDD.OB
Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. (More...)
If you want to invest in intellectual property (IP), I suggest you hawk Hudson Bay Capital Management. It is making a killing in IP. I have set real-time reminders for all of its SEC filings, and I am consistently amazed by its activism in this burgeoning sector. Although it typically invests alongside institutional co-investors in private placements, even common shares graph a remarkable history of double- and triple-digit returns.
The IP sector is one of the fastest growing sectors on Wall Street. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, the market for global IP licensing alone grew over 500% in the past two decades to over $180 billion. And that's just licensing. Corporations spend another $20 billion per year transferring IP assets between themselves, and then they sue each other in billion-dollar patent wars à la Samsung (SSNLF.PK) v. Apple (AAPL). Funds like Hudson Bay smell easy money in this smorgasbord of business activity and are inviting themselves to dinner.
3,520 people received this article by email alert
Add your email to get alerts on VHC too:
Get email alerts on VHC »
This article examines the IP sector and the broader knowledge-based economy that has enabled funds like Hudson Bay to earn outsized profits during the past few months. I recount Hudson Bay's recent IP winners -- Vringo (VRNG), Spherix (SPEX) and Worlds (WDDD.OB) -- and some of its current IP holdings like Marathon Patent Group (MARA.OB).
Outrageous Profits in IP
Never before has IP been so valuable, and never before have so many world class companies been opening their checkbooks to acquire it. The valuation being placed on IP is approaching, dare I say, obscene levels. I have already written about a company trading around $3 per share with price targets as comical as $18 and $100 per share. Sometimes dreams come true, however: investors watched VirnetX (VHC) go from $1 to $40 per share solely on the basis of IP (the company had just 11 employees while topping $2 billion in market capitalization). Likewise, AOL (AOL) rallied over 40% when it sold its patents to Microsoft (MSFT).
You might have heard of a few of these monster IP transactions.
Samsung lost a patent lawsuit against Apple for $1.05 billion
Microsoft (MSFT) bought 800 patents from AOL for $1.06 billion
Google (GOOG) bought 24,500 patents from Motorola Mobility (MMI) for $12.5 billion
InterDigital (IDCC) sold 1,700 patents to Intel (INTC) for $375 million
Sterling Partners acquired IP giant MOSAID for $590 million
IP monetization firm RPX Corp. (RPXC) completed an IPO of $184 million
Nortel (NRTLQ.PK, a defunct company!) sold patents to Rockstar Bidco for $4.5 billion
Facebook (FB) bought 650 patents from Microsoft for $550 million
Patent troll Acacia Research (ACTG) raised financing of $225 million
Apple and Google bought 550 patents from Kodak (EKDKQ.PK) for $527 million
Profiting from the Knowledge Economy
Hudson Bay understands that this type of deal flow underpins its IP investments with real cash liquidity. After all, the new U.S. economy is based on ideas - not things - and idea monetization is becoming the country's biggest economic activity.
Manufacturing has been declining as a percentage of U.S. GDP for decades. In 1981, manufacturing was responsible for 22%; by 2010, that share had dropped to 13%.
Over the same period, the services industry - including information services and other IP sectors - has made up for those losses in spades.
Ocean Tomo, an IP valuation and services firm, estimates that tangible assets (factories, offices, and inventory) accounted for more than 80% of the value of S&P 500 companies. By 2010, intangible assets (brand goodwill and intellectual property) had become 80% of the value of S&P 500 companies.
The U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that IP-intensive business is directly responsible for 27.1 million jobs as of 2010, with another 12.9 million jobs indirectly reliant on patents and intellectual property. Taken together, IP-intensive sectors are responsible for 27.7% of all jobs in the U.S. economy.
Overall, the U.S. Department of Commerce estimates that the IP value-added impact on GDP was $5.06 trillion, or 34.8% of GDP in 2010.
Investing for Big Returns
Today, Hudson Bay is one of the most active capital funds in the IP sector. It knows that tiny companies can quickly become overnight celebrities. With just two patents, VirnetX (VHC) was able to secure licensing agreements with Microsoft and quintuple its share price within one year. InterDigital sold $375 million in patents to Intel while gaining billions more in market capitalization amid rumors of a takeover by Apple or Google.
Hudson Bay also knows that Wall Street stalwarts are resorting to IP to stave off declining revenue growth, not to mention paying tons of cash outright for patents (see bullet points above). I was surprised to learn, for example, that 56% of 2011 revenue for old-timer Qualcomm (QCOM) was IP licensing.
Why would companies license their IP rather than use it to create new products and services? Two words: easy margins. In 2011, not only did Qualcomm's licensing revenue grow 48% YoY, but that revenue had a dumbfounding profit margin of 87%. Plus, residual revenue from licensing requires almost no additional work, making IP the most desirable profit generator on the planet.
Hudson Bay Earns Its Reputation
Hudson Bay gained popularity after its massive victory in Vringo. Although many investors heard about Vringo in the $4-5 per share range, Hudson Bay was one of its earliest investors- from the pennies per share. Specifically, Hudson Bay was the largest shareholder in Innovate/Protect, which was the private entity that merged its patent portfolio into Vringo. These patents would ultimately be responsible for Vringo's rally from $1 to $5 per share and legal victory against Google. This makes Hudson Bay an original institutional investor in the IP assets that secured Vringo's victory, not to mention the au courant attention of James Altucher and Mark Cuban.
Hudson Bay is also earning hefty profits in Spherix. On February 13, it disclosed a 7.47% ownership stake. Within two months, Spherix had announced an IP transaction involving wireless communication patents and its share price had doubled.
Triple-digit returns might be the new normal for Hudson Bay. This spring, Hudson Bay bought $1.1 million of corporate debt from Worlds Inc. and was involved in several prior financings. The stock has tripled this year.
Current Holdings
Currently, Hudson Bay owns over 3.5 million shares of Marathon Patent Group, which is led by former Firepond CEO Doug Croxall. Croxall has personally secured tens of millions in courtroom IP rulings, and he hopes to find the same success in Marathon Patent Group's current lawsuit against Sony (SNE), Siemens (SI), Winn-Dixie (WINN), Juniper (JNPR), Dell (DELL) and Blue Cross Blue Shield.
Hudson Bay likes Marathon Patent Group not only for its patents but also for its business model. The company is a pure IP company with no debt, current revenues (CyberFone), over $2 million in cash, low burn (approximately $150,000 per month) and executives who have won over $100 million in past IP lawsuits. Marathon Patent Group combines the blue sky potential of IP lawsuits with more established revenue sources like licensing and consulting. Croxall's shareholder letter reflects the invigoration that Hudson Bay evidently imparts to its team. If Croxall maintains this energy, Hudson Bay will likely add another star to its triple-digit portfolio.
Conclusion
If I want my money to be positioned in the hottest sector, IP is my sector. A new billion-dollar lawsuit announcement arrives daily. Untold fortunes are being made and lost in private companies and USPTO application battles. Courts are overwhelmed, and statisticians barely comprehend the sector's growth rate.
I have admittedly simplified Hudson Bay's investments for readability (its investments are not just common stock but rather a combination of notes, rights, warrants and convertible preferred), but the historical reality is that Hudson Bay is one of the best-performing financiers of small IP companies. I welcome readers to look at its SEC filings and even contact the fund's managers directly for tough questioning.
Estimating the value of IP is staggeringly complicated, and I prefer to not estimate it at all. No matter how enchanting the story, I do not understand prior art, laches, re-exam, four-pronged venue tests nor other legal mumbo jumbo. I invest in stocks that have spectacular risk:reward ratios and spectacular insiders. If these stocks happen to underlie IP companies, fine, but the stock itself must offer me a low-risk opportunity.
I suspect that many readers are in the same boat as me.
My search for spectacular insiders leads me to outperforming funds like Hudson Bay and companies that have not rallied too far from original price levels, such as Marathon Patent Group. Any of Hudson Bay's SEC filings automatically warrant my attention. Then, after I analyze its stocks and evaluate risk:reward ratios, I make a personal decision. I suggest that you do the same- preferably with the help of a financial advisor and the co-investment of an outperforming fund like Hudson Bay.
This article was sent to 3,520 people who get email alerts on VHC.
Duke,
The best position to have is to be long SMME. Even if the result of the courtcase is not favourable for Smartmetric I don t think we will see it very much lower than current levels.
Halcyon should not have had a problem to raise the 5 mio dollars especially with the stock trading at these levels.
Next event should be production of the Keyring. I see the keyring as a side show and hope it will enable the company to raise enough revenue to launch their smartcard technology sometime this year.
I have always seen the smartcard technology as the BIG moneyspinner for Smartmetric.
Let s wait and see. Don t have a strong view on matters legal. A win would propel the share price into stratosphere. Not there yet though. Visa and MC have got a lot to lose so will throw a lot of money at this case to avoid defeat.
If . BIG IF, they win I might be looking at buying puts in the smaller CC companies like Discover who will probably be next in line to get a letter from Patrick Bright.
Cheers
R.
Hi Bra,
Why not buy some Visa Sep 150 puts. Trading @ just over 3$ :)
Duke,
In case you are unhappy with the google translations, have fun working your way through the original text :)
???????? ??????? ???????
????:
??>????>????>??
SmartMetric???NFC????????????
http://www.cebnet.com.cn 2013-04-25 14:47 ??:RFID???
??:
SmartMetric?NFC???????????????,????????????
SmartMetric????CEO Chaya Hendrick?:“????????,????????????????????NFC??,??NFC??????????????????????NFC????????NFC??????????,????????????,???????NFC??——?????????NFC?????????‘???’NFC????????”
????,?NFC?????????????????????????,????????????,???????????,?????????
????????Visa????????SmartMetric?????,Visa??????????EMV???????????????????????
?????,SmartMetric???????????USB???,????????????
?????????????????????,?????????????????????????????
(????:???)
????
??CEO???NFC??????????2013-04-25
Autosplice???????NFC??2013-04-25
Codemasters??NFC?????????2013-04-25
NFC?????? ?????????2013-04-25
NFC??????? ?????NFC??????2013-04-25
???? NFC???????2013-04-24
????????NFC??TD??HTC One???2013-04-23
????:NFC???????????2013-04-22
GSMA??:?????NFC???????2013-04-22
????:NFC???????????2013-04-22
???? ?? ??
0
0
Latest Smartmetric news release reported in China
:)
The SmartMetric the NFC used in biometric chip card
April 25, 2013 1 Source: Goldmine of Things: RFID blog Font Size: T | T
TAG: fingerprint touch smart chip NFC
The SmartMetric NFC technology for the touch of fingerprint identification chip card, target customers for all types of financial institutions.
The SmartMetric, Chairman and CEO of Chaya Hendrick said: "our chip cards, financial institutions can provide customers with more secure NFC solutions than existing systems, will only be confirmed when the user's fingerprint because the NFC biometric card to unlock and allow NFC start working with other NFC technology is actually not secure enough, because the device is normally in an unlocked state, hackers may steal NFC Live - even if the user does not use the NFC item smartphone 'unsafe' NFC system an example.
The company said its NFC biometric chip card programs to be more secure than other solutions available on the market, because only opened only at the time of the transaction, other times it is turned off, to prevent the theft of malicious information.
The company is currently working with Visa and MasterCard to court. The SmartMetric statement, Visa and MasterCard EMV cards in the United States violated its patent. Expected results of the event will be held in August this year.
Previously reported that SmartMetric recently released a fingerprint touch USB keychain for the storage of medical information recording.
Last year, the company announced additional funding from private investors, the extension built plans of the company in Buenos Aires also received millions of dollars in funding.
Good text, I want to Favorites!
Editor:
Dear LMU,
Like you, I remain cautious too about latest run up in the share price.
One explanation though could be the limited number of shares on the market.
Of the 130 mio shares ( the shares issued through the recent cap raising will only start trading in 6 months), Chaya owns aprox 50 mio.
That leaves us with 80 mio shares.
Like you, I am a long term die hard share holder ( outclassed by yourself probably and by Shiner who is like you, an ultra die hard share holder). I assume none of the long term holders have any intention to sell at this stage ( before production and sales) at this still low share price.
I guess that there are a fair few of us, die hards, who,combined ,own a big percentage of the 80 mio freely traded shares.
So, not much is left to trade for the masses who are catching up on the news and the potential of this company.
As I said, it might be an explanation for the recent run in the share price.
Anyway, I am happy for you , Shiner and all long term patient share holders.
I will stick to my holding and wait for production of the keyring, the smartcard and the result of the court case before I am thinking of selling any shares.
Good luck to all holders
R.
Potts,
And if you are a citizen of the beautiful 'land downunder', you might get an added benefit of, what I expect, a depreciating currency vis a vis the US$.
Helmets on,
Fingers crossed and fasten your seat belts.
We might be in for the ride of a lifetime :)
R.
Shiner,
This news release was , as you mentioned, a bit different from previous ones. Maybe the pieces are starting to fall into place and her efforts will come to fruition in the not to distant future.
You mentioned a hope that institutions could have a look at Smartmetric. I have my doubts as I think that the company has to be a bit more established before it attracts the interest of the big boys.
I assume that companies have to adhere to minimum requirements before institutions decide to take an interest in them.
If you are interested, have a look at the Nasdaq listing requirements.
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/121.asp
As I mentioned before , I am not familiar with the way things work in the US so please feel free to correct and comment.
R.