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.
arthritis63, couple of his posts went overboard in accusations and I responded to those in msgs
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12727508
&
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=12732660
His posts have been spilling from venting into accusations. Hopefully some positive NEWS, that everybody is waiting on, could ease his frustration.
Corp_Buyer, on the other hand, has been accusing mgmt for a very long time and he is against just about everything that mgmt does.
-vg_future
arthritis63, not to speak for DesertDweller, but, I don't think he is that type of a guy. I guess he is just frustrated. He is not pushing any agenda, but, people with agenda could be misusing his posts.
JMHO.
Goodluck All!
vg_future
Corp_Buyer, where do you come up with this kind of stuff..."why wait to sign LG AFTER their ISO accelaration....". Did you ever think that LG waited and then finally signed after the judge confirmed the ICC award (Dec last week....and 3 to 4 weeks for discussion and finalysing the deal). Don't assume things and start building theories to support/make your point.
You have proof...show it..or else just wait for the things to happen.
-vg_future
DesertDweller, that has to do with the new SEC option expensing rule. Lot of other companies did that at that time. To the best of my knowledge, mgmt team signed something to the effect that they wont be selling the accelerated options till the original scheduled vesting date.
-vg_future
revlis, IMHO, IDCC wouldn't be rushing into any deals. Though some of the deals seemed like rush deals...in retrospect (after other things came into light) they were done because of some other compelling reasons.
For ex : Ericcson deal was signed because NOK was trying to escape from its obligation (or the judge might have said something or gave indication regarding our patents)
NOK settlement was done this April to put an end (or atleast try to minimize the effect) to the Samsung 3G bs during arbitration.
I will go with Meritt on this....we will sign when the deal is right.
-vg_future
DesertDweller, most of your post is based on assumptions and what ifs. I understand your concerns, but, let's try switching your "what if" context and say....3 new significant licenses/settlements (not counting NOK settlement and LG license). In this case, even if they have Samsung done (we don't know how much effort that is and whether it is done or not), then they will have 2 more from top 5 or 6 and you know how difficult it is to get these guys signed (for ex. NOK, Ericcson or Motorola). Wouldn't they deserve more in that case. Does it matter if they get little bonus for that type of effort.
Just my 2cents.
-vg_future
hookrider, I wish you get the rain that you are hoping for. Goodluck.
-vg_future
hookrider, not to be too picky, but, the hair cut would be from 30.56 (or 31...if not for the NEWS, we would have been maybe around 31 given the surge in the market). Anyway, there is always a tomorrow and we shall recover it with interest.
-vg_future
All, positive spin.
I think IDCC thought this guidance was good (however, I still can't believe that they haven't read the consensus estimate floating around....atleast in Yahoo) and wanted give the stock a little boost. Last quarter they waited for more than 45 days after the quarter end to give the update..why didn't they wait this time...I guess another update will follow. Probably, they have something up their sleeves (my opinion formed based on todays 8K) and thought that this would give the stock a double boost. Sadly, it went the other way. We would have been lot better (atleast a dollar better) had they not released this update. This release was purely optional at this time (i.e., IDCC has flexibility when they provide the update, ofcourse within an acceptable timeframe).
-vg_future
duplicate. deleted. EOM
-vg_future
mschere, I heard that Briefing.com reported something like "67 to 68 versus 69 estimate" around 1.50 PM. The drop in the stock price coincided with that. So, I guess the damage was already done by the time Reuter's stuff came out (at around 2.17 PM). But, the Reuter's release might have made the immediate bounce impossible. Of course the market helped later on.
-vg_future
mschere, when did you see the reaction in the market, reuters news release or IDCC news release? Market reaction would tell us if the NEWS was publicly available at that time or not.
-vg_future
mschere, I looked IDCC's graph today and the actual big volume trading (that pushed the price below 30....more than 500k in less than 10 mins) took place between 1.45 and 1.55 PM. So, the 1.17 timestamp on Reuters might not be the actual release time.
I am still scratching my head as to why they released the earnings update so promptly after 45 days after the close of the quarter. Don't they have access to consensus estimates and don't they know that their guidance would be below the estimates? Why did they do it before option expiration to put unnecessary downward pressure on the stock? If only they had included the interest income in the update....we would have been trading up with the rest of the market (maybe over 31....oh, what a dream??).
-vg_future
DannyDetail, you wrote
when the stock ran up ten points for no apparent reason?
I tend to disagree with anybody who says this....I sincerely thought that WallStreet is giving IDCC the kind of recognition and multiple that it deserves. But, I understand that there was some speculation built into that run-up. Probably, many investors were under the same impression (that we ran up for no apparent reason) and that added fuel to the selling (I still believe there is lot of manipulation that day) on that day.
Goodluck All Longs!
-vg_future
olddog967, thanks, I will just keep my fingers crossed then. EOM
Goodluck All Longs!
vg_future
Anybody, question....Regarding the Samsung assertion of choosing and applying of MFL rates...
1)Could we say that this assertion was made in June, 2006? If so, could it be possible that this might have changed in the past one and half months and IDCC has no obligation to update the status (assuming that 10 Q includes all the updates till date)? My assumption is that they just reported the status as of June, 2006, but could have made lot of progress in talks/negotiations since then. JP's recent "NO COMMENT" is seeming really encouraging in this regard.
TIA.
-vg_future
The_Net, also if the panel has applied the volume discounts in rate setting for NOK, then I don't think Samsung will get the same rate as NOK.
-vg_future
As per this morning's PR, they still have lot of ammo for the buyback.
IMHO, as with the NOK decision/settlement, we would hear about Samsung when the gloom predictor's least expect it.
-vg_future
navinjohnson999, when you can argue with an assumption that they might have already signed and sitting on the NEWS....why can't I assume that they might be signing today. Remember that you started this chain of thought of sandbagging by putting out a question that if they can sit on the NEWS for the CC.
-vg_future
navinjohnson999, where did you get the idea of sandbagging? Can't they sign something today and announce it tomorrow? They don't have to be sitting on the NEWS now. There is no rule that they cannot come out with any other (other than earnings) NEWS tomorrow. The bottom line is "nobody here knows for sure till the compnay speaks"
GoodLuck All!
-vg_future
The_Net, I hate to give undeserving credit to the PJ analyst. I am not sure where he pulled his numbers from. IMHO, either he was played by someone even bigger or he himself is an active player in the $10 haircut game.
I also beleive that IDCC didn't come for shareholders rescue when it was most needed during that cut. A simple excuse of policy is not sufficient. A $10 (7 + 3) drop on one of the heaviest volumes is not any ordinary market fluctuation and I don't think that IDCC taking the "policy" shelter was the right thing. I am not sure how many shareholders' confidence is shaken because of that movement. Hope everyone is holding steady.
-vg_future
revlis, agree that they can spot the buyer (broker), but, I don't think they would know who is actually buying (i.e., who is buying through the broker). Either way, it is good to see somebody is guarding by buying.
-vg_future
Ellix, I am under impression that FACT cannot always be tied with IDCC buyback. They could be doing some other buying or IDCC could also be using someone else in addition to FACT for the buyback. IMO, if a buyback becomes so apparent it will leave room for manipulation. So, I am not sure if IDCC was really buying at around 35. If it is true, I will be glad because it would show confidence and hint at the potential that IDCC seeing.
-vg_future
revlis, yes, that is how I understood it....buyer is aware of the market and IDCC (not necessarily like an insider) and might be adjusting the buyback accordingly.
-vg_future
revlis, okay. Thanks. EOM
-vg_future
revlis, enyaw & ellix, just trying to put this together with what teecee posted a week or 10 days back regarding buyback. Since IDCC's buyback is 10b5-1 type, seeing FACT on the bid (i.e., IDCC's buyback is active) shouldn't effect any NEWS release from KOP....i.e., we can still get NEWS irrespective of IDCC's buyback.
JMHO
-vg_future
DD, agree with you only partially (there more contributing factors). Some big time manipulations was involved in dropping the price with significant volume (report alone couldn't have generated that much volume....regarding insider sales, we went up even after insider sales around 30-31s).
-vg_future
loophole73, thanks. Clear and to the point. EOM
-vg_future
JimLur, I guess he pulled out that number from thin air just to justify his valuation. I really wish he loses his clients for the thoughtless and self serving downgrade.
-vg_future
Thanks GAB for the update, much needed reiteration/upgrade for IDCC's price now.
Goodluck All Longs!
-vg_future
glennymo, IMO this time around it is different...this is not the old IDCC anymore. There is lot of confidence. This time they have delivered. Unlike in the past, we now have some issues resolved and the future is looking more realistic rather than just being a hope and promise.
Again, I take comfort in the fact that Roath acquired the shares.
Goodluck All!
-vg_future
tangent778, NEWS shouldn't be effected by exercising of options. To the best of my knowledge, only an open market buy will have the NO NEWS effect.
-vg_future
revlis, same impression here. He locked in his tax liability at these prices for [3876 shares X (price on July 11th - $5.6875)]. This means that he is confident that it is a pretty cheap price. I take comfort in that.
-vg_future
ed_ferrari, got the whole story. EOM
-vg_future
GoDuke, I wasn't criticizing you...just wanted to get the story straight so that no body panics.
Acquired means a good sign. Somebody thinks that this is a good price to lock in the tax liability. This is not an open market purchase, so, it shouldn't have any effect on NEWS.
-vg_future
Please tell the whole story. Form 4 - Acquired 3876 shares.
-vg_future
spider69, exactly, good point. They wouldn't think that 30 and above is a good price if negative NEWS is on the horizon. The current price levels should make it really attractive for an active buy back and I am not sure if we are seeing that kind of support to the price now.....hmmmmmmm....maybe NEWS.
-vg_future
ellismd, yes, but my point was that breakdown of negotiations is just corp's opinion.
-vg_future
Any ideas, IMO, the buyback is not currently active or else we would have seen a better support (like the one we presumably saw around 30 and 32, 33 and 34s). If so, then we can expect some sort of NEWS pretty soon from KOP.
Anybody see anything on level 2?
TIA
-vg_future
revlis, I guess negotiations could be considered a fact based on the hint (for that matter even without a hint negotiations/talks should be expected when so much of money is involved and a decision is about to come out from ICC), but, breakdown in negotiations is definitely just an opinion that corp is stating as fact.
-vg_future