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.
Short position.
I believe that many of the institutions that hold IDCC long have also a significant short position as insurance against a loss of the ITC appeal. It's not the question of being wright or wrong but of being prudent. I also don't believe there are many purely short.That would be foolish, we all know or believe, I am sure.
I can't short on my plan but if you have an adequate time frame (I do) you don't really have to. MO
RJ
Why the drop after the CC?
1;The share price had a decent run-up from 23 to 28 and many traders sell on the news.
2; I suspect that lots of long term holders, including mutual funds sell covered calls and buy puts.
Simply said; traders and investors all want to make money and you cannot make money unless you sell.
Now, to each his own strategy. I don't trade this stock and I am sure I have missed on a lot of opportunity to make money in the past. But that's me.
MO
RJ
This is fast becoming a bashers/shorters-in-disguise club. New investors cannot possibly be persuaded to buy with all this baseless negativity and useless whining. Keep it to one post a day and make it count, please.
The large short position is no doubt by institutional investors, hedge funds, etc. all of whom are betting that IDCC will loose the appeal with the ITC/NOKIA. Some of them may have a change of heart and would like to get out of it but they are waiting or hoping for a better opportunity. Will they get it?
Well, if there is a market correction of any significance they certainly will. Will we have one before year end? Probably. In the mean time they have to be concerned that the price of IDCC may rise too much, fueled by the good earnings, possibly forcing them to have to add more cash to their position before the situation turns in their favor, if it ever does. It is always helpful to know what your adversary thinks. Where do they find their adversary? Right here! Here they can easily determine (and influence) the sentiment of the longs. The success of this blog may have a weakness. Everybody reads it and we all talk too much and when the all the talk is negative it affects rhe sentiment of everybody who is long.
Have they done this successfully? If you don't think that negative sentiment of the longs doesn't affect the share price negatively,then I don't know what to tell you.
This time the negativity was downwright histerical.
Too bad they don't have a blog that we can infiltrate. That was in jest.
Obviously there is nothing wrong in that, their money is in the bet also. They are all in and so are we but only our cards are showing.
I am sorry for the long lines but I had to get it off my chest.
All my opinion.
RJ
To all the complainers. Idcc never gave us an earnings forecast. They never do that. Perhaps they should. They gave us a revenue forecast. Did they miss that? They also refused to give us a forecast of their expenses when they were asked specifically. Now, the higher legal expense for this quarter could very well be just one layer's fee, the on big shot that they hired for the Nokia appeal. Wild guess? Maybe, but if so, I'd say it could be very well spend money if he can turn things around with the ITC. I wouldn't complain about that! Even if it made IDCC "miss" the earning. Yes, traders can get burned. It's too bad. Long term investors don't really care about tomorrow's run or lack of it. (Are you going to sell tomorrow if we get a good run up? I wouldn't) They care about the money flow and the prospects for the future. Has any of that changed today? I don't think so. Therefore
, let's cool it. Let's see what management can tell us tomorrow expecially with regards of what they plan to do with all that money. Take it easy. MO RJ
I believe Rimm resigned within the last year and 1/2.
RJ
Farragut
To all.
MO. I believe that the MM's are the shorts. The longs are are all on this blog. New buyers won't come in a significant number until this thing really takes off. It has disappointed in the past too many times, so people are more careful. If you want to see this thing move before then, you (and me), the longs, have to buy new shares. I know it is hard because we are all overextended ( I am in for over half of my investments)and a bunch of us have been waiting for years to unload this baby for a good price. in the meantime at days like today the MM's are keeping the share price in check and shuffling shares back and forth among themselves, trying to reduce their exposure slowly over time. But patience and guts will be rewarded . So, buy more if you can or wait patiently. Frustrated but hanging tough with confidence growing.
RJ
OD thank you for your effort. The formula is certainly complicated. Like you said, it's probably meaningless when applied to IDCC. MO
RJ
Exactly!
The Nasdaq site is showing a rather complicated (for me) set of numbers for net cash flow which I assume it be the same as free cash flow and which was positive 8 M, but that was for '08. It may have something to do with the way the company has done the buy-backs and also the way it recognize income. Wild guess. The CFO should be asked to explain. But thank you anyway. MO
RJ
The levered free cash flow for IDCC at Yahoo is almost negative 25Millions, not as you say -28%. Never the less it is a good question to ask the CFO tomorrow. It must be an error because it implies that Idcc spends more than it takes in. How's that possible? Anybody cares to explain? MO
RJ
FWIW I sat as a board member of a hospital corporation for three years and observed first hand the change of chairmanship. The new chairman was chosen within the board itself. I was struck how the new chairman was able to change the work and direction of the board totally although the old chaiman remained a bord member. Mr. Clontz may have chosen to be relatively passive as long as he wasn't on lead , after all, IDCC was one of many boards he was a member of and he must have been busy with the other company he chaired. I have no douts that he wanted and expected to be nominated. I don't believe that the timing was a coincidence.
He probably was tired of the far east (or his wife) and wanted to come home. In addition, knowing the company and being known in the board will help him implement any changes faster if is so disposed. All IMO
RJ
Texb:
Flat revenue??!
What are you comparing? Quarter '08 to same quarter '09? Year to year? Month to month?
RJ
I don't think there was a positive spin in my post. It is obvious that this latest battles were a defeat for IDCC. but reality is (not spin) that the war is still on and Nokia could still loose in the end. So, your statement that Nokia has " ZERO reasons " to sign an agreement with IDCC amounts to histeria. Nokia knows, and for that matter probably most if not all other companies licenced or not, they know that they are infringing at least on some of the patents. Cooler minds will prevail eventually. IMO
RJ
This loss at the ITC does not IMO preclude a Nokia/IDCC licence agreement soon. In fact it could occur sooner then most people might expect. IDCC will of course appeal but but in the mean time the consequences of a prolonged fight and lack of a licence deal will weigh on her decision to give in to some of Nokia's demands. I believe there will be an agreement soon and the company will do better with it even if it will favor Nokia ( I believe that the Sam deal was also mostly in their, Sam's. favor). If Q and Nokia can find common grounds so can IDCC and Nokia. It's all and only about money. Let's see what comes out of the CC tomorrow. All IMO
RJ
That would explain why the shareprice is so undervalued. The street may believe that the ITC is rigged and IDCC has no chance in prevailing because they think Nokia bought the judge and may have bought the entire commission. Is the street right? I sure hope not. MO
RJ
It looks to me that the IDCC.s attorneys agree with me about the judge being over his head on this. He may have been wise to have requested a Markman? JMHO
RJ
I don't understand what would Nokia gain from filing for a review. She already has won the initial determination of non-infringement. Why would she care that the patents are declared valid?
On the other hand, if she also files for review, doesn't she increase the chances that the commission will indeed review the ID and therewith jeopardize her own win ? With only IDCC petitioning for a review, the Commission may refuse one and the ALJ's ID will stand. With both parties petitioning it may be harder for the Commission to refuse. Am I wrong?
RJ
Nicmar
I agree 100%
RJ
dclarke
Some retail investors may also have cut their positions significantly. I almost did. Anyway if you believe that the sp will be around 23-25 soon, today's low would have been an excellent entrance point of course. MO
RJ
Warbil
I fear you may be correct, IDCC's team may have been inept, rather untimely for sure. But it just underscore the difficulty for anyone, even the greatest lawyer but unschooled in this kind of technology, to understand it properly, let alone explain it to the judge or worse to a jury. I hope you are wrong and like you would love to see the reasoning behind the judge's decision. Meanwhile let's take advantage of this "irrational pessimism" JMHO
RJ
When everybody is scared generally you should be a buyer not a seller. For traders this seems to me the perfect time to start buying. I know, it sounds like a trite line but I believe it is true. My opinion only.
RJ
How are you so sure? If he has been so busy all this time with all kinds of patent cases he may not have the time to study and understand the intricacies of this particular technology.He can't be all knowing. Anyway if you are right and I am wrong then, I hate to say it, somebody blew it at IDCC. Big time! That's why I prefer to believe my theory.
Just my angry opinion.
RJ
I prefer to believe that the ALJ was over his head about determining infringement and therefore took the easy way out and punted to the full commission. Why? Because if the ALJ is anywhere near being correct that Nokia is not infringing , then I have to rethink my entire investment's reasons. Were our (IDCC's) attorneys inept? Worse, is Nokia right about our Patents? This is for me much harder to believe. So, I do hope that the commission will prove the ALJ wrong but for the time being I would much rather see IDCC and Nokia settle. The proverbial bird in your hand. IMHO
RJ
FWIW VectorVest has IDCC valued at $59.43. It's a wild guess but I, like some on this board, tend to believe that the decision over infringement was (technically) over the ALJ's head. Therefore he punted to the full commission. His statements over validity and enforceability are gratis. Of course they are valid patents; isn't that what the Patent Office says! Enforceable? of course, if valid and applicable. That's easy to say. But Infringement...? One has to understand the technology well before making that judgement. He may have been clueless on the subject. Funny also how he went on to say that if the full commission reversed him, he would recommend banning. He doesn't sound too sure of himself, does he? JMHO
RJ
Trantum is one of two advisers of the Touchstone Growth/Value fund that just got rated 5 stars by Morningstars.
What are next quarters' earning forecasts?
I believe that lack of clarity and visibility about legal expenses and possible write-downs were the reason for investors to retreat. If I remember correct Bill Merrit did not answer the questions on that subject.It could wipe out much or most of the income increase that is projected. It certainly would have been overreaction but in this market.... As soon as we get clarity on that the stock value will rise again. I did not sell. I bought more at the low. Hopefully it won't go any further down but I feel much better now that I think I know WHY the stock retreated so much yesterday.JMO
OT: Often the solutions of a problem that appear too easy are the ones overlooked or ignored.I e-mailed several times the previous administration's treasury secretary suggesting to drop the Mark-to-Market accounting rule (it's only accounting!) temporarily and just for the "toxic" securities. I suggested to replace it with a Mark-to-Fair-Value rule, fair value as determined by independent accounting. Fair-value being certainly more than zero the asset destruction of the banks could have been prevented , I believed. Thus no need for the TARP. The asset destruction was also facilitated by the absence of the "uptic-rule" and by the use of "double-short"(?) ETP's, both being allowed by our at best inept SEC. The irony was that it was Joseph Kennedy Sn. who having been witness (blandly stated) of the destruction of the Market of 1929, as the first SEC Chairman of our Country expertly introduced that rule in 1935, knowing well the power of the shorts especially well organized (large institutions)to arbitrarily destroy capital. Until that rule was eliminated by our SEC in 07 we had been through severe recessions but we have never experienced something like this; the artificial destruction of our banking and capital system. Stalin is laughing in his grave or in hell. JMHO
Selling Idcc for a profit against losses in other stocks would make sense to some gambling that the share price wouldn't change much until January. Or maybe be somebody is out with an "uninformed" downgrade. Eitherway more opportunity to buy at a lower level.
I have the feeling that Nokia did not like for Samsung to learn that they (Nokia) were close to signing a deal with IDCC. Nokia's CFO appeared annoyed by the perhaps unexpected "outing" of the 8-K. They may have promised Samsung to hang tough with them through the ITC ordeal. Nokia's Cfo may have wanted to reassure Samsung that in fact they were not close to a deal. Both Nokia and Samsung know that the first to sign will probably get a better deal than the other.
mo
MTJBKH- A while ago I posted that I had some difficulty buying IDCC at my Merrill Lynch account. I had to call each time, I could not do it on line. They refused to give a reason for it.
After seeing that report on naked shorting I wonder if I really own IDCC stock. Did I buy FTD's instead? If I they let me sell covered calls on them, I would think then that the stock I own is real but I am not sure. If they don't, well then...
I wonder if Merrill Lynch runs an Edge Fund that is short of IDCC. On three occasions over the last several months I havn't been able to buy IDCC direct on my web accounts. Each time I had to call and ask. Each time they did put the buy order in while they were giving me silly excuses for putting a block on direct buys. What a nuisance! Of course I raised hell but it is very strange. Anybody with a Merrill Lynch account with similar experience?