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.
Are you saying we are in the beginning phase of the pump-n-dump? I was thinking we are closer to the middle or end phase, LOL!
Once
It sounds like IDCC management is pumping this from every conceivable angle. That's not a good sign from a perspective of future price stability.
Once
Jean-Michel, "accounts receivable" is money that is owed to IDCC but not yet collected. A typical business will know that there is a certain percentage of that that will never be collected so it is not counted the same as money that is already collected.
The 58,666,000 shares outstanding definitely doesn't include options. There has been a lot of good information contributed on this issue by Corp Buyer if you go back and read his posts. Options will cause this number to balloon further in the coming months and years.
I'm sorry no one took the time to answer these questions earlier but they probably assumed you are here to bash the stock. They don't like inquisitive minds unless the questioning is leading towards the proper conclusion.
Once
Spree, why do I even bother with you? I never said IDCC wouldn't have a great day tomorrow, no one knows. I do expect it to be lower in a month or three than it is right now but I have already posted that I smell a pump-n-dump happening. We will see whether I turn out to be correct on that call but perhaps not as soon as you would like.
No, I have a long-standing deal with the IDCC longs, if IDCC ever surpasses it's all-time high of 82 and holds it for two consecutive earnings releases/CC's then I will publicly admit I was wrong about IDCC and promise to never post on an IDCC specific board again. When I made that promise many thought I would be gone in under a year but now we are going on four years. Let me tell you, if it doesn't happen within six more years I'm withdrawing the offer. Ten years is more than enough time.
Tomorrow will tell us very little unless IDCC does an about face and announces new long-term license agreements with all the major manufacturers and states the rate is above 1% on all sales. That's not going to happen so it looks like we may have to wait the full ten years to see who will be apologizing to whom.
Once
CorpBuyer, it looks like you have been researching IDCC, good for you! I noticed you mentioned IDCC's stock buyback program (or, more accurately, the lack of it). Anyway, as I recall, management set up some parameters to limit the stock buyback. As I recall they never did buy back enough stock to consume even half of the funds allotted for buyback. I also recall that they were not allowed to pay over $10/share. I thought that was odd, it was like saying we don't think our stock is worth significantly more than $10/share.
Anyone know the current status of the stock buy-back program, ie., could IDCC continue buying shares if they were under $10 or do they plan to raise the limit so they can buy shares at current levels? Personally, I don't know why they would buy more now when they weren't even maxing out purchases when IDCC was under $10.
Any info appreciated,
Once
It's really not one of their more notable albums, I just lost my copy so was hankering for a listen. But if you like Dire Straits, you will like it.
Once
I have lots of Dire Straits to catch up on tonight thanks to you Wantobe so nothing right now!
I would like it if you would spell "Dire Straits" without the "gh". You see, it's not that kind of "straight", it's the geographical kind. An old expression with nautical beginnings. Early sailing boats couldn't sail upwind so they were at the mercy of the weather when in narrow straits. "Dire Straits" was a name a friend suggested to Mark K. because they were so broke when they formed the band, they were in dire financial straits.
Now they get their money for nothing.
Once
Cool, thanks for checking anyway, it's one of their more obscure albums so it's not surprising.
Dire Straits ROCKS! I think the gravel of Knopfler's voice combined with his brilliant guitar and song-writing abilities is quite a phenomenon, one not likely to be repeated by anyone, ever. He stands above the rest, IMO.
Thanks for all the Dire Straits tonight, FLAKA AM 500 ROCKS!
Once
O.K., I was wrong, the album is called "Love Over Gold". I hope that helps.
Once
No, it's called "Telegraph Road" but maybe I have the album wrong. I'll see what I can dig up on the net.
Once
Dire Straits, the original, I believe.
Good luck!
Once
Cool! What service. I'm impressed even if you can't find it. If Wantobe can't find it, nobody can!
Once
Wantobe, that Dire Straits ROCKS! Now if you could just find Telegraph Road.....
I know, it's old and obscure but you are Wantobe!
Once
Here's a good one:
"That's why I like to see IDCC keep on recruiting world-class managerial and technical talent because that's the key to making a successful transition to a product-oriented business model which, in IDCC's case, will be built on IDCC's firm royalty base."
You speak as if IDCC will actually contribute something to the world, LOL! I would remind you that just because IDCC states a desire to move away from their "tax collector" image, doesn't mean they will be able to do it. I'm sorry, you can give those pigs all the options they want and they still won't turn IDCC into a competitive manufacturing business. Where are all these chips we heard so much about back in 1999? LOL!
Once
Good point Daniel:
"Aug. 5th,2002 IDCC closed @ 6.32....9 months later IDCC is @ 24.70."
That alone should tell you this isn't the "safe haven" that some make it out to be. That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard!
Once
I smell another pump-n-dump!
Once
Sjratty, it may be more meaningful to guess the share price a week or two after the earnings and CC. This gives analysts time to make new projections and various statements and financials to be discussed.
I will stick to my initial estimate of $18.
Once
You are talking of the Tom Carpenter estimate? I think that's way too low once all the back royalties and one-time license payments are accounted for.
Once
We are rockin' now! I don't know what the problem was, it seemed iHub was just really slow this morning. I would wait 30 seconds to a minute, no sound. Now the sound is coming on within about 10 seconds. 5 seconds is more typical for my connection.
Rock on!
Once
Jim, I would just like to point out that your recent comment flies in the face of everything we have been told about 3G rates for the last few years:
"At one time we figured Sharp paid over $4.25 per phone. I think the rate will be cheaper for 3-G."
We have been told for years that IDCC has much more IPR in 3G than 2G and that 3G phones will have higher ASP's (average selling prices) and thus higher royalties. In your opinion, when did this outlook change and why do we continuously have to lower expectations from that which the "experts" have told us to expect?
Once
Teecee, you have to be kidding! Do you mean to tell me that after all these years, after all these great patents and technology that there are only 1,800-1,900 people on God's green earth that have decided this is a good place to park a few dollars? What about all the patent examiners, the families of IDCC engineers and lawyers, other companies personnel who have done patent scrubs on IDCC's IPR, their families etc?
You are telling me there are only 1,900 people in the whole world that think IDCC is a good enough investment to risk thier own money? Unbelievable!
Once
None of the audio links are working for me this morning. Anyone else having problems? I'm jonesin' for my morning FLAKA AM 500 audio fix and it's broken! Help!
Once
Blueskywaves, you don't know what you are talking about:
"IDCC has 1,800-1,900 shareholders of record. If you take out the insiders/5% owners (~5M-6M shares) and the 200 or so institutions which own approximately 15M shares then that leaves you with 1,600-1,700 individual private investors which own approximately 35M shares."
Most individual shareholders are not "shareholders of record" as you obviously think. Individual investors shares are typically held under the name of the brokerage. This stock would really be sad if it only had 1,800-1,900 shareholders total! LOL!
Once
L2V, the shorts (on the whole) are some of the saviest traders out there. I wouldn't waste my time feeling sorry for them, if they weren't making money they wouldn't be able to do what they do. They have an incredible amount of patience and will often ride a short position up rather than cover.
An experienced short knows he needs to be even more diversified than a long. Often the short position is simply a hedge and won't be covered no matter how high the stock goes as long as the fundamentals that led to the short in the first place are still intact.
Once
Yes, that's correct. however on July 10th we also traded above $24. Less than six months later we were back under $5.
Once
You can be confident that management will NOT give us the Nokia and Samsung rates even if we learn those rates are not being challenged. We will still be in the dark and that's why this CC/earnings release is not as important as many are making it out to be. The really important numbers won't come in till later in the year/beginning of next year.
Based on managements guidance last quarter (regarding how IDCC was planning on accounting for specific licensing revenue), I believe the current numbers will look quite good due to the lumping of a lot of past and future revenue into the current quarter. However, maybe we will learn that they have decided to spread it out a bit more so numbers later in the year don't look so bad. In the end, it's not the specific numbers that matter so much but how solid the revenue stream is. If most of the money is comprised of one-time upfront payments or royalties from contracts due to expire in 2006, then these revenues will be viewed more along the lines of nuisance payments, not a solid stream of royalties that can be depended upon like an artesian well.
Once
I think management will make the usual positive comments causing the stock to stay somewhat buoyant until the possibility of a long wait to resolve some very important issues starts to sink in with investors. When people realize the upside potential is limited in the near-term they will start to bail. This is a pattern with IDCC after quarterly conferences. JMO.
Once
So, you are admitting that IDCC is a high-risk investment?
"Unlike most product companies with insurance, a pure IPR company that loses its patent cases usually goes out of business.
Why should a wireless engineer work for a company with high litigation risks for anything less than above average market compensation."
It's good to finally hear you admit there are high risks investing in IDCC. BTW, when are you going to stop representing management at the feed trough?
Once
Blue, you didn't demolish rmarchma's "central premise", LOL! Note that I don't agree that was, in fact, his central premise. The "central premise" you quoted was the following:
"It’s impossible to draw any valid conclusions from such a small sample............If you could come up with about 10 or so small-cap IPR technology companies with similar revenues to IDCC, like Rambus and ARMHY, then I would give much more credence to your study and conclusions."
You claim to demolish this by stating that there aren't more examples of similar small-cap IPR companies. His premise was simply that three companies was not enough to draw meaningful conclusions from, not that more existed that were excluded (note his use of the word "if"). Your claim that you "demolished" his premise has no basis.
Once
Rmarchma, you have obviously walked all over Blyskywaves suspect arguments using facts, impeccable logic and a generous flourish of style and class as you illuminated the gaping holes in his logic. I thank-you for taking the time to do so. I would have done it myself but I figured my time was better spent on other matters since it didn't look like anyone was truly buying his arguments anyway. But you never know what some may believe so it's good that you finally put his arguments to bed properly.
Once
Amrwonderful, I'm surprised you are expecting such low earnings this quarter:
"I would not expect much from Q1 earnings. In my opinion, everyone should adjust their thinking to .03/share."
I was under the impression there would be a concentration of revenues recognized this quarter which would push earnings well above $.03/share. Are you saying you don't believe this to be the case or that there will be unexpected expenses that will negate any increase?
In any case, it's apparent that what's keeping IDCC share price afloat recently is the expectation that licensing is picking up and we are on the verge of signing lucrative new contracts. I'm not confident this will happen and, without this type of news I fully expect the share price to settle back down. With this in mind, the risk level of holding and/or buying shares at these prices is extremely high. I'm not saying the price couldn't spike here, certainly the stock is entering into a very volatile period, hard to say exactly where it will go in the short-term. But in the bigger, longer picture I think $23 is a very respectable price to recieve.
I'm not bashing I just have to call it how I see it.
Once
Jim, I don't understand this unnatural fixation that many IDCC investors seem to have for the funds that hold IDCC. I've never seen shareholders of other companies with a similar fixation. Imagine what Warren Buffet would say. Do you think he would care whether a particular fund increased or decreased their holdings of a particular stock? Of course not!
Just what relevance does it have? These funds have plenty of bad picks also, that's not limited to amateur investors.
Once
Nohotin, you can rest assured that Texas Instruments does not need IDCC to compete in the CDMA ASIC market and there is absolutely no evidence they are or will be partnering on wireless ASIC's (application specific integrated circuits).
IDCC management made a big deal about being ready with ASIC's to hit the 3G window, and now that 3G phones are rolling off the shelves IDCC is strangely mum on the whole chip thing. Could the whole chip story just have been a ruse to boost shares higher before insider selling?
Once
Mschere, you must have forgot about my amazingly correct predictions about the Ericy case:
"IMO:The only one who really "nailed" the Ericsson settlement was Tom Carpenter."
I stated for years that I thought they would settle out of court right before the trial and that it would be for "not even close" to $100 million, well under. That was at a time that everyone else around here was looking for $350 million to over a billion!
I also said after the Ericy settlement the stock price would not instantly shoot up but (if it was to rise at all) would do a gradual rise. Others argued it would double overnight, no time to get in after the settlement.
So I consider myself as one who "nailed" the Ericy case.
Once
sjratty, I think the lack of responses to your poll of expected earnings for Q1 2003 is not too surprising. The exact number for any one quarter is irrelevant for a number of reasons. Even with GAAP rules IDCC has a wide amount of latitude when it comes to which quarter the revenues are recorded in. IDCC has a long history of reporting great earnings one or two quarters, getting everyones hopes up, only to see those revenues fall off sharply in the following quarters. The only thing that matter is the recurring royalty stream and without significant new licenses, that royalty stream will be coming to an end over the next few years.
Once
Art, I like reading EconEli's perspectives. I wish you would get off your high horse and stop trying to control everyone.
Once
Actually Matt, that is not true:
"When they go to filter someone, they obviously want them out of their lives in all forms."
A couple of weeks ago I felt like the e-mails you were sending me were messages that you might not want to be seen publicly and were sent only to ruffle my feathers. I chose to put you on e-mail ignore but still found your public messages to be worthwhile.
It can be a valuable tool to be able to filter just private nuisance messages from particular posters while still following the public discussion.
Once
Sophist, it appears your post is nothing more than an attempt to sow doubt in the eyes of those who will be voting on the additional options. You claim there are simply "too many unknowns regarding the purpose, implementation and all effects" of this proposal to know whether it will be good or bad for shareholders. LOL!
It was managements job to make the case that more options would be a good thing. They failed to do so. Why should we give more options to a group who can't even tell us why we should? It's not shareholders job to blindly approve managements requests, why bother to vote if that's all we're doing?
Furthermore, I am very suspect of anyone who is lobbying on behalf of corporate insiders.
Once
Blue, about the only pattern I have noticed is your continued propensity to stand up for management and other insiders. You say more options will make management work harder? LOL!
If a farmer feeds more slop to his pigs do they work harder? No, they get fatter! You think more options will make them work harder but fail to consider that it may be easier for management to lower the stock price to get a favorable strike price than it will be to continue to propel the price upward. There are two ends to the valuation of options, the initial strike price and the share price when those options are finally exercised. It is just as profitable to lower the strike price that the options are granted at as it is to raise the share price.
The bottom line is more options may not align insiders interests with those of other shareholders as much as everyone keeps saying.
Once
DannyDetail, you said:
"Finally, everyone seems to be quoting Warren Buffet to support their arguments lately, so I might as well take a shot at it."
Then you proceed to quote his statement that investors can expect around 6-7% returns in the future and those who think they will see 15% will be disappointed. But then you inexplicably turn around and claim that IDCC will return "several times" 6%/year! In short, you didn't use Buffets comment to support your argument, you used it to indicate you thought his comment didn't apply to IDCC but failed to follow up with any supporting evidence to support why his comments didn't apply!
I am often amazed at what passes for analysis around here.
Once