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.
#GIGL earnings tomorrow?
Sorry to let you down. Uh, put your shirt on?
Push over some, make room for me in your boat! If it tripled I'd still be red :( !
You're breaking my heart! I just KNOW I can sell them for $3 someday!
I'll take two, please. Do you accept plastic? (LOL)!
There it is again, like clockwork: the opening bell slap-down. Funny, in a pathetic way. Long here.
Gosh, you mean this old gal isn't the only one with a $50K to $8K drop in about six weeks!? Everyone was yelling "We're going to dollars!" and I didn't believe it at first. Now I do. When my account totals $29 and change I'll make the announcement! (LOL) If they build a GNH in our neighborhood send the kids home, I'll be the first into the rubber ball pool!
May I ask what "action" they have "taken?"
Every day, same old same old. At the opening bell they knock it onto its knees like a bad habit.
The answer to "why" in many cases is "all in," as in "no more dry powder!" Ugh!
I see .145 @ 10:30 AM?
Okay, based on your say-so, I'm gonna hold my breath! (LOL)
I'm starting to favor ETrade, more kudos. Will contact them tomorrow and see what's involved. 10-Q for the speedy reply!
Okay, I might understand that if I hadn't traded OTC for 6 months without such an event, several times with unsettled funds. I'm not contradicting anyone, just saying that I accept it but don't understand it.
While talking to Scotty the SP crept from .0038 to .0045 so I let it go for today, quietly steaming at what the delay meant.
Another time, maybe.
IDK. Pop-up @ purchase time intervened saying, "Contact your Agent about making this transaction." (or something to that effect). Called brokerage and spoke to branch mgr. who said something about "illiquid assets" and that the security couldn't be purchased. Got bummed. Looking elswhere.
Thank you for the fast comeback!
Appreciate the info, will look into it stat.
For some time I've been more than a bit disgusted with iHub over the callous treatment of its clients. I know, rules are rules, but sometimes a calm reminder has more impact than a slap across the face, especially when a newbie transgresses inadvertently. (Oy, take off my right hand already, will ya!)
Can't understand what all the fuss is about over investors exchanging data and information about "different stocks on different boards" on iHub. Is this good will? (NOT!)
Sorry, John, iHub deleted your reply before I could get to it. I posed a question on the ICLD board (#30578) about AMLH. The mods must have taken offense at my temerity, so they deleted your reply. I'm watching the AMLH board now as well, so maybe one more try would get through?
Would like to take a token entry but wondering if I'd have to open an account w/a different brokerage to do this (Scottrade won't allow); don't know which ones might approve the trade. Any advice or help you could offer would be greatly appreciated. TIA. Sorry to bother you a second time over this.
No reason to do DD if I'm going to be locked out of buying.
John, I tried to open a token position in AMLH to give me time for DD. Scottrade would not allow the buy, and claimed it was considered an "illiquid asset or position." Do you know anything about this sort of thing? And if Scottrade excludes AMLH from purchase by its clients, how many other brokerages do the same without making it known? This troubles me. TIA & good luck trading!
Is that why the sheep are getting fewer and the wolves are getting fatter? IDK.
It did, sometime early on, maybe around 9:45 AM when I was coffeeless and not awake yet (LOL). Fast mover, this one.
Most farmers know on a tree filled with sweet apples there's a sour one somewhere. Maybe more than one.
Someone once told me that not all knowledge was carnal. I didn't believe a word of it.
If I didn't know better I'd say you were talking dirty! Well okay, maybe I don't (LOL)!
Have they announced a fixed date for the release of the 1Q17 financial report yet? I'm keen on knowing the changes/progress made in the past three months. Expecting a positive take on the news here too. TIA
Hey, look, the picture is really her uncle. They're performing miracles with surgery these days.
My HERO has returned! You were certainly right about this one, sir. I dipped my beak, then did some DD and added afterward. In with a small position, but IN nonetheless. You have my family's gratitude.
Li'l Annie
Just a newbie here but please correct me if I'm wrong without jumping all over me. You asked what I think, here it is.
Who ever said each A/S could only be traded ONCE in any 12-day period? I think no one ever said that because it's absurd.
I think the normal back-and-forth action of the market allows shares to be traded several times, and each time it's sold it becomes a "share traded."
Hence, your 1.5 BILLION "shares traded" could easily be 500,000,000 (or, in fact, a lot less). No? Hey, one share traded five times IS five "shares traded," just not five different shares.
At this depressed SP, how can a 1:4 RS (yielding 4X the depressed SP) ever come close to Nasdaq price requirements? I don't understand how they expect to make that transition from this low point.
Sunny, in the construction trades, I'm told they have a saying, "Opinions are like a--holes, everybody has one." Well, in stock investing, many people have A LOT MORE THAN ONE...and that's what makes them what they are. Sometimes it explains a lot. Just do the best you can, don't be sidetracked. Soldier-on!
Toughen up, Sunny, you gotta ignore the flak. It's like being cut loose in the schoolyard when they let Kindergarten out for recess. People seldom beat their critics when the critics are perfect or have better opinions than others. Rise above the whine for the sake of your serious followers. Back-at-it, now.
As a beginner, I seriously doubt I'd have made the same call. You hit the nail in saying "anyone with the same skills."
I'm not like that. I respect everyone's opinion and wish us all a measure of success here, whether I agree with them or not. Certain ones I agree with, those whom I take seriously to heart, are those who show a pattern of honesty, honor, integrity and skill beyond the norm. I'm new at this so I have no place knocking anyone's opinion in favor of my own or anyone else's. As for John K., I'd follow him too if he were available again, but I haven't heard whether he returned to iHub yet or not. Too many people I seriously respect have had only praise for the man and I'd like to sample his take on future investment situations.
All opinions, even conflicting ones, are worth something to my mind. Investors need to feel comfortable with their decisions or they can't make any. Need to know when to BUY as well as when NOT to buy. No?
Wow! It beats me how you manage to DO that, my friend! I'll just have to pay a little closer attention to your take on stock analysis and trading from now on. You have it down to a science :)! (LOL)!
John, this small investor with a small budget has nothing but faith in ICLD. Surprised at today's price action, I sold more of $PIP and plowed it into ICLD, now holding 9k shares of this absolute GEM. I believe this will fully rebound in the not too distant future, and where it goes from there is best left up to wiser minds than I have. Thanks for the recommendation, will ride this bronc until it turns around...or else.
Relatively speaking, that's an accurate assessment.
My first thought was that it seems unrealistic to ask for, or expect, discussion of "actual" damages when most damages (apart from fees & costs) are thus far hypothetical. How can anyone prove actual damages from hypothetical figures? I don't understand the legal aspects on that one.
I'll just assume (perhaps wrongly so) that there needs to be a baseline of "presumed licensing income" (had licensing occurred) against the figures Z stated it's willing to pay for licensing the patents. So "damages" in that sense would be the figures on V's initial term sheet compared to ZTE's publicly stated offer times the number of items in question. Let's see: isn't that $2.50/phone minus Z's offer of $0.0002/phone? Don't know if anyone can speak clearly on this matter since no FRAND has been formally declared yet.
Let's not forget, it's Z that has been strategically obfuscating records and figures from their own past negotiations with other companies. Since those figures remain withheld and cannot be proffered as a baseline for damage discussions, the only baseline I know is V's term sheet, which was largely based on worldwide industry standards to begin with. If there's a meaningful difference between worldwide FRAND and ZTE's FRAND, It appears that Z has done a bang-up job of concealing it.
How all this factors into projected future damages against other defendants is unknown and discussion here is premature, so I can't go there; there are too many other knowledgeable minds out there who would be much more accurate than I.
JJS is likely right and I'm wrong, but it's starting to feel like this case is wandering through back alleys that lead nowhere but at a starting point. Can anyone say, "Mobius Strip?"
Nothing real ever existed or came to pass until it first occurred in the imagination, the oft-ignored archive of man's deepest wisdom.
You're 100% right.
IMO, this is just another thinly disguised stall tactic, requesting that V provide disclosure similar to what V already received from Z in forms eventually provided to the court. It can't possibly be for the purpose of discovering new information.
As submitted by a poster on VRNG24's Twitter site:
Tre Beal ?@TreBeal · 3h3 hours ago
@TheRealVRNG24 this is an interesting motion, ZTE attorneys want to get information from V that it can obtain from their client.
It's a tit-for-tat head slap against V by new lawyers who haven't yet bailed on Z.
It could be meant as a credibility attack toward V's assertion of harm from revealing confidential information, or to compare what V claims Z revealed with what V's witnesses may state was actually revealed (from their knowledge). If minor inconsistencies can be found, they might be used to attack or minimize V's damages claims.
And we KNOW there will be substantial damages claims. Is this damage control in its strict sense? I'll let others be the judge. My humble opinion tells me yes.
ZTE has a bent mentality. That sort of mentality is sometimes called being penny wise and dollar foolish. Sanctions are NOT good. When a company INVITES sanctions you can wager they're trying to avoid something a LOT worse. Learning of their manipulation, connivance and dishonesty in everything they do, and the suddenly discovered reason for Guo's refusal to come to the US, we have a clear picture of a company that probably has a LOT more to hide than we'll ever know, IMHO.
Z is dancing around the issues and I can't put a finger on why. I have a strong feeling they're concealing MUCH more naughtiness than we ever dreamed, and fear we're getting closer to exposing them.
But they're still locked in the Chinese mindset of being loathe to settle with a "troll" for anything more than what THEY deem proper, which is $0.0002 per phone, or something miniscule like that.
In the beginning, they were ENCOURAGED to steal IP to make Chinese manufacturing competitive with more advanced world companies. Don't have a link to that, but it's in the papers Z submitted to the court. They also believe if they have to pay big money to foreign firms, they feel like they're essentially slaves to foreign countries, and they can't swallow that. Factor in the "flea on an elephant" mentality (with V being the flea, of course) and they can't drag themselves to the table to settle. They can't "save face" if they give in to a so-called "troll." Hiring new lawyers who walk in the front door and walk out the back seems to comport with this impression pretty well.
This is getting more interesting by the day.
When Kaplan mentioned Texaco v. Pennzoil in context of V v. Z, the first thing that occurred to me was that he had a keen and subliminal awareness that Z is not just one Chinese company contending with Vringo.
It's also an arm of the Chinese government because of its large ownership percentage, and really Beijing IS calling the shots here, make no mistake about that. IE, money hardly matters when the Chinese government desperately wants US market share with all its snooping hardware & software already embedded in their devices.
Lately, news reports are replete with instances of computer security compromises (including our government agencies) by Chinese, North Korean (China's love child) and Russian hackers who have no special love for the west. This issue has long departed from the "commerce and trade" arenas and slid onto
"political and warfare" grounds. Please realize, western countries are vastly more developed than say China or Russia whose hinterlands are about the same as they were 4-5 hundred years ago (awesome lack of infrastructure).
Computers & digital technology are running today's world. Any entity, agency (or country) that can surreptitiously access data from other sources can effectively control those sources. Once China gets a hard foothold in the US and has devices carried around in the hands & pockets of countless citizens and agencies, I can't speculate where our domestic society goes from there. I prefer to simply think about Texaco v. Pennzoil. It just feels better.