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.
Correcting six myths about WDDD in the last 3 weeks
1. WDDD owns 5,936,115 shares, NOT 6,596,667 (MRMD 10-K), as I have been falsely accused.
2. Institutional investors almost never invest in true penny stocks. And it's funny that someone mentioned institutional investors having positions in micro-cap stocks. Micro-cap stocks are somewhere around $150M market cap, maybe as low as $75M. WDDD has a market cap of less than $10M. Institutional investors do NOT invest in companies like WDDD. Absolute lie.
3. WDDD is currently at $.0386, not sub-$0.02 as some have been stating for months this is heading to, and is up 25% in the last 3 months.
4. The noteholders, whose notes are in default, are shareholders and have it in their best financial interest, as shareholders, to avoid dilution of their own shares at any cost. A company doesn't have to hold your hand through its every future decision in a financial statement. Additionally, rolling over a note is a NOTEHOLDER decision, not a COMPANY decision. That's why it wouldn't be in a financial statement because it's not a decision the company makes.
5. The current market value of WDDD's patents are $11,563,000 without any doubt. Don't let anyone tell you that accrued expenses aren't a part of a company's valuation as a liability and don't let anyone tell you WDDD owns 6.5M shares of MRMD. Do the sum of parts valuation yourself and it's quite easy to calculate $11,563,000. Ask your own finance colleagues or finance professors and the answer to this debate is extremely simple. They would laugh in your face if you were trying to calculate an asset value and subtracted liabilities from equity to arrive at it.
6. Considering that patent infringers win 33% of their court cases historically, the market actually thinks that if there is a win in court, the market believes the patents will return $34,690,000 ($34,690,000*33% = $11,563,000).
[QUOTE]
Your number of shares is also incorrect as another pointed out
in a sum of parts analysis you do not use that information, one simply uses the following
Asset 1 + asset 2 - net debt - NON operating assets/liabilities = value
7.403= 3.12 (MrMD)+ x - (-1.43 mil)
7.403= 3.12 (MrMD) + x + 1.43 mil
oh and i do love how you utilize negative working capital to inflate your patent value - actually that's incorrect
WDDD's patent portfolio is valued by the market at $10M+.
You are correct that WDDD's ownership percentage has changed. I did not notice their offering to finalize their 100% MRMD ownership. I apologize for that.
But don't act like you didn't make that mistake as well:
Market value of WDDD = Market value of Merimed + Value of remaining claims
$7.7 mil = $7.7 mil + ZERO
It Doesn't CHANGE THE FACT THAT WDDD OWNS 7.x% of Meridmed not the number you and others here claim
Just because many here don't understand how to find info - doesn't mean that info is incorrect
It Doesn't CHANGE THE FACT THAT WDDD OWNS 7.x% of Meridmed not the number you and others here claim
It is important to READ COMPANY FILINGS
Prove it? Go read about the company and do your own homework
Amazing how people need others to give them facts here
Oh and I hope wddd owns more of Merimed as it only reinforces the point that wddd Patent claims are being views as worthless by the market!!!
I've provided many links in the past that proved my points as factual, I also stated others here need to learn to their own basic diligence rather than depending on others
You mad....garbage stock.....bro
Lol here we go again sigh - must be really hard emotionally to know one put their life savings into a pile of junk patents
lmao go read the recent wddd 6ks
217k buys, 10k sells on Friday.
But where are all the buyers?!?!?!
Wait, let's break it down. There's no "smart money here."
Because we know what "smart money" is!
It's just a swing trader!
He's going to sell all of his shares!
WHO KNOWS THAT INFORMATION? THAT IS AN UNEDUCATED GUESS AT BEST.
"WDDD is going sub 2 cents" as it rises to $.0415.
Hysterical.
An "experienced" investor realizes that information like equity interest in another company is found in a 10-K, not a 10Q. WDDD is not an exception.
Suggest you read the WDDD 10-Qs before making a statement like that.
Just in case you weren't aware, the last 10-K came in December and there have been two 10-Qs since then (for 3/30 and 6/30). There will be another one released shortly for the quarter ended 9/30.
Glad I could assist in your understanding of financial statements.
So, the information Captart7 was alluding to most recently came from the 10-K from 12/31/2016 (and its amendment in August, which did not have anything to do with its equity in MRMD).
Have a nice day.
It's been over 9% for quite some time now. Since at least the 2015 FS.
139,500 buys today and 2,850 sells. Just 120,000 on the ask before .065 rolls around.
Closed at the highest its been in some time. Finally got above that .034 barrier that seemed to be impossible to break with a lot of asks around there with high volume.
Once we get past .0355 there's no looking back.
Wouldn't want to be one of those asks right now.
It's not my investment strategy. It's not semantics. You said the bids are valuing WDDD's claims at significantly less than MRMD's stake. They aren't.
It's just an incorrect statement.
OMG lol!!!
I have already explained this to you
If your argument is some days the market values the claims at some minute amount you really are missing the point guy lol
Here TRY READING MY PAST RESPONSE DIRECTLY TO YOU ON THIS ISSUE (#4)
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=134680289
Is there a reason you feel the need to repeat commentary? As it seems I am often repeating my past responses to you to reiterate the same points
No those are "bidders" who feel the stock is worth much less than even its stake in Merimed
Incorrect. .0314 (which is the bids in on Thursday the last time I checked) is higher than the WDDD stake in MRMD when MRMD is at $0.49.
I posted the math before if you want to check it out.
Nah no worries, I just thought it was super interesting that you posted that article as it spurred my first ever post on iHub after lurking for a long-time.
It was almost funny how obvious that article was. Completely irrelevant online software suddenly gets destroyed by Vice.com while in the process calling out WDDD (after a positive markman ruling) for being a patent troll and taking a dump on the CEO. All the while claiming the company will cease to exist.
Yeah, that writer just "stumbled" upon Worlds Online. I bet.
My first post on iHub was in response to this article posted over 2 years ago.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=113968458
The article popped up out of nowhere about a Worlds software that hasn't been active in over a decade.
This article randomly bashes WDDD, calling Kidrin a patent troll and taking a "dump" all over Worlds as a company. The title even mordidly uses the language "before it's gone forever," implying that Worlds as a company is going to cease to exist.
The article was clearly not random.
Someone with an interest in seeing Worlds fail wanted that article to be written, around the general time period the Markman was successful and WDDD was still trading around $0.10 IIRC.
If S&G agreed to represent WDDD in district court...well, they can't just pack up their bags and go home.
I agree mad, that was just an untrue statement.
I'll say it again, there is no possible way S&G expected >50% of the claims to be validated. They're not stupid.
Also - still haven't gotten a decent explanation of the timeline of WDDD. The stock was at $0.03 well before the PTAB ruling, and is still at $0.03. The market didn't react to the PTAB ruling at all besides a quick run-up. So "the market values the remaining claims at 0" still doesn't make sense to me. There should have been some sort of selling off after PTAB for that theory to hold weight.
This thought is not complete.
1. Investors invested in WDDD for enormous upside potential from the patent litigation
If no killed claims are brought back into play by the CAFC expect a hard sell off
7. It's funny when people say oh I can only lose three cents! No you can lose your entire investment!
This makes sense.
According to that logic, WDDD cannot go down past $0.025 realistically, assuming WDDD will retain a floor at its stake in MRMD and MRMD doesn't tank.
With a 9.3% stake, 161.79M shares of MRMD, and 246.77M shares of WDDD, here is the floor of WDDD according to "the market values the patents at zero" theory:
MRMD share price: $0.40
WDDD floor: $0.024
MRMD share price: $0.50
WDDD floor: $0.03
MRMD share price: $0.60
WDDD floor: $0.037
MRMD share price: $0.65
WDDD floor: $0.04
-----------------------------------------------
But I'm confused, MRMD's share price was $0.65 on September 1st, and WDDD was trading at $0.03? So the market was valuing their patents negatively?
-----------------------------------------------
Alas, the bid has moved to $0.0315 today, despite MRMD being traded at $0.50?
So do the markets suddenly value WDDD's patents at $0.0015?
-----------------------------------------------
I'm so intrigued by this theory.
We have talked a lot in the past two months about a much broader depth of topics, including more far-ranging external to WDDD cases that could have a serious impact on WDDD's long-term vision in the legal system. As cluttered as it was this past 2 months (and I admit, I am 100% also at fault), we weren't discussing nearly this much back in June. It's been healthy as now people are actively engaged again.
[QUOTE]
You do realize conversion to equity is dilution correct
Omg
WDDD up 0.30% on the day.
Not sure where all this "this stock is dead, going to 0" talk is coming from, we're pretty much set above $0.02 in the intermediate future.
With help from madprophet and the briefs posted, I could definitely see a positive catalyst even in early 2018 (maybe even late 2017 as mad says) popping this up big-time.
If the PTAB truly "cut off WDDD at the knees" as some say, surely the ability to wipe out the PTAB ruling would have quite a positive effect on WDDD.
I don't even think they need it.
You do realize that the $500,000 noteholder is a shareholder, correct?
The positives is if found unconstitutional the way I interpret it is that PTAB would be thrown out. The CAFC would have to take that decision by SCOTUS and since WDDD is arguing in its briefs the constitutionality of IPR/PTAB the CAFC would vacate the PTAB findings.
A mid ground is much more aligned with a post and pre AIA ruling.
Additionally, if the market was so perfect and was the only thing telling you anything, and dilution was certain, why wouldn't the price already have adjusted? Wouldn't the market have sold off to the low .02s if investors were reacting rationally?
Because if I knew the price was certainly going to .02, I would certainly sell at .03 and repo at .02.
Hm, that perfect market.
So you want to directly challenge DataStream's words again?
You are saying there's no chance of rollover of notes by the noteholders?
Seems like an event that's up to the noteholders that WDDD wouldn't disclose.
Hmmm.
Thank you for your continued upkeep with the Oil States case, mad. Should make for some good post-lunch reading.
22
Four options to deal with the note in default.
1) Rollover the notes in default.
Post 25736, DataStream, 08/08/2017: All note holders are long term qualified/ investor shareholders with large positions, they don't want dilution or legal default action, it's not in their best interest so they will rollover the notes with a warrant kicker above market. IMO
10-Q, 6/30/2017: The holders of the promissory notes shall receive repayment in the full face amount of the note from the initial $750,000 the Company actually receives from the net proceeds of its patent infringement claim(s) or from the net proceeds of a public offering.
10-Q, 6/30/2017: The holders of the promissory notes shall receive repayment in the full face amount of the note from the initial $750,000 the Company actually receives from the net proceeds of its patent infringement claim(s) or from the net proceeds of a public offering.
MRMD 10-K, 12/31/2016: Worlds Inc. intends to dispose of its stock in an orderly fashion into the open market or in private sales, in either case in ways designed not to impact the market. While it holds any of our shares it will vote them in proportion to the votes by other stockholders.
Alpha doesn't understand that WDDD and MRMD are related parties.
I cannot believe you just refuted the statement made in the MRMD 2017 financial statements.
The dilution argument is over.
This theory would MAYBE hold weight if they moved in tandem with each other.
They literally move in the opposite direction, so just because 9.3% of MRMD's market cap is close to WDDD's market cap right now has nothing to do with WDDD's value.
1/1/2015
WDDD cap = $16M (105M shares, $0.15 per share)
WDDD's MRMD stake = $0.5M (32M shares, $0.15 per share, 9.5% interest)
6/30/2015
WDDD cap = $12.5M ($.13 per share)
WDDD's MRMD stake = $0.3M ($0.12 per share)
1/1/2016
WDDD cap = $3M (120M shares, $0.025 per share)
WDDD's MRMD stake = $0.9M (64M shares, $0.14 per share, 9.5% interest)
6/30/2016
WDDD cap = $1.8M ($.015 per share)
WDDD's MRMD stake = $0.9M
1/1/2017
WDDD cap = $7.3M (246M shares, $.03 per share)
WDDD's MRMD stake = $1.45M (65M shares, $.24 per share, 9.3%)
6/30/2017
WDDD cap = $9.8M ($.04 per share)
WDDD's MRM stake = $9.3M
-----------------------------------------------------
Your commentary re: Worlds and MRMD would make sense if you actually backed it up with data and research, and I'm so so sorry for the board that at this moment in time, because of MRMD's strong surge in 2017 in the marijuana/cannabis business, their market caps have aligned. But a broken clock is right twice a day, just as these market caps have aligned for the very first time in history.
Aka....6 months ago WDDD's MRMD stake was worth just 19% of WDDD's market value.
Nothing has changed since 1/1/2017 besides MRMD becoming more valuable.
Theory debunked.
CLAIMS RETAINED BY WDDD BY THE PTAB
Independent - 35%
Dependent - 38%
Claim 2 of patent 998:
A system for displaying interactions in a virtual world among a local user avatar of a local user and a plurality of remote user avatars of remote users, comprising:
a database storing information associated with one or more avatars, each user being associated with a three dimensional avatar;
a memory storing instructions; and
a first processor programmed using the instructions to:
receive position information associated with less than all of the remote user avatars in one or more interaction rooms of the virtual world, wherein the processor does not receive position information associated with at least some of the remote user avatars in the virtual world, each avatar of the at least some of the remote user avatars failing to satisfy a condition,
receive orientation information associated with less than all of the remote user avatars, wherein the processor does not receive orientation information associated with at least some of the remote user avatars in the virtual world,
generate on a graphic display a rendering showing the position and orientation of at least one remote user avatar, and
switch between a rendering on the graphic display that shows the virtual world to the local user from a third user perspective and a rendering that allows the local user to view the local user avatar in the virtual world.
Putting the Dilution argument to rest
From the MRMD 2016 financial statements:
Worlds Inc. intends to dispose of its stock (MRMD stock) in an orderly fashion into the open market or in private sales, in either case in ways designed not to impact the market, but in any event within five years of the dividend payment debt. While it holds any of our shares it will vote them in proportion to the votes by other stockholders.
Luckily, there is only about a 7% chance that Mayer is on the panel and I believe we will not know who is on it until right before?
Agreed. The funniest part though, is that even if there is dilution, it never meant that dilution was the only option. It just means it was one of the options. But if WDDD re-finances with the large note holder(s) or sells MRMD, it's a no-win for him.
But he will try to spin it as if he was "right," even though all of us have acknowledged constantly that dilution is an option, just not the only option.
Obviously, as an investor, I'd rather see them sell some of their stake in MRMD and repo it at a later date.
Also, the sentiment that WDDD's stake in MRMD is the only market value inherent in WDDD is hysterical. That's not how speculative markets work. If you're invested in WDDD for the MRMD stake, you probably have no idea what you are doing. You would just have invested in MRMD directly. People are invested in WDDD for the patent portfolio only.
Here's a quote from Charlie Munger on this Monday morning in one of the best risk/reward plays I've seen in a while:
"And the wise ones bet heavily when the world offers them that opportunity. They bet big when they have the odds. And the rest of the time, they don't. It's just that simple."
He may have been talking about you, Old Owl.
STILL talking about dilution (and STILL wrong).....ZzZzZzZzZzZz
Why WDDD decreased from 2013-->
In 2013, when WDDD first gained traction in the investing world with a legitimate case against the video game giant ATVI, most investors expected a reasonably short timeline and were excited about WDDD's claims in court and knew about the potential damages (direct and treble) because of the sheer revenue ATVI generates. I remember many posts in 2013 saying they expected some sort of hard decision by the end of 2014 (or even a settlement quickly from ATVI) and possibly early 2015.
In 2013 came delays. Every time there was a decision looming, a delay came. ATVI delayed, delayed, delayed. They used every legal stay possible, extending what should have been a year or two max case into 5+ years. I'm not sure if ATVI thought it would bleed WDDD out (which wasn't a horrible strategy), but WDDD's contingency case with S&G pretty much prevented that. The financing with Hudson Bay, in retrospect, wasn't ideal, but it was going to be tough for CEO Thomas Kidrin to raise funds with such an uncertain timeline.
As the delays were announced, investors fled. The Hudson Bay agreement diluted the shares. Retail investors who once had a great hope of a big court case win (albeit a gamble) got tired of waiting, and knew there were other places in the marketplace where they could put their money and see a return more quickly. Especially in a time period, post recession and the stagnated markets, where investments were finally producing returns again and there was positivism in the general market.
Time is money. Especially in our capital markets.
Fast forward, and the "hype" of WDDD is essentially dead through no fault of its own. The markman hearing was a resounding success. The PTAB ruling, IMO, was a favorable outcome. WDDD retained 19 claims - 7 independent, 12 dependent. 1 of the 7 independent claims - claim 2 of patent 998 - was validated in December 2016, claiming the following language:
A system for displaying interactions in a virtual world among a local user avatar of a local user and a plurality of remote user avatars of remote users, comprising:
a database storing information associated with one or more avatars, each user being associated with a three dimensional avatar;
memory storing instructions; and
a first processor programmed using the instructions to:
receive position information associated with less than all of the remote user avatars in one or more interaction rooms of the virtual world, wherein the processor does not receive position information associated with at least some of the remote user avatars in the virtual world, each avatar of the at least some of the remote user avatars failing to satisfy a condition,
receive orientation information associated with less than all of the remote user avatars, wherein the processor does not receive orientation information associated with at least some of the remote user avatars in the virtual world,
generate on a graphic display a rendering showing the position and orientation of at least one remote user avatar, and
switch between a rendering on the graphic display that shows the virtual world to the local user from a third user perspective and a rendering that allows the local user to view the local user avatar in the virtual world.
WDDD will continue to rise as the time to court gets closer and closer.
TEN KEY FACTS ABOUT WDDD, REGARDING RECENT EVENTS, FROM A NON-SHILL
1. 101 was not raised in Bungie's PTAB reply (POSITIVE).
2. Cross-appeal was not raised, and the deadline passed, in Bungie's PTAB reply (POSITIVE).
3. Dilution is one of many options for a note holder in default, but by no means the only one. If dilution was certain, and the market was efficient, there would have already been selling (NEUTRAL FOR NOW).
4. WDDD still has 7 independent claims, including one claim that allows for a system for displaying interactions in a virtual world and interacting with a plurality of users (claim 2, patent 998).
There were 13 independent claims invalidated - a 35% success rate for WDDD's independent claims (POSITIVE).
WDDD also has 12 dependent claims, which support and enhance its independent claims.
There were 20 dependent claims killed - a 38% success rate for our dependent claims (POSITIVE).
5. For the past 365 days, since September 10th 2016, WDDD is up 30% (9/10/2016: $0.0281, 9/10/2017: $0.0340 - POSITIVE).
6. For the year-to-date, since January 1st 2017, WDDD is up 36% (1/1/2016: $.025, 9/10/2017: $.0340 - POSITIVE).
7. There is a roughly 95% chance we make it through the CAFC untouched (source: someone on this board, can't find the post - POSITIVE).
8. Assuming there are 5 "anti-patent judges," there is a 93.5% chance 1 or fewer of them end up being on WDDD's case. (Source: https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=134171067)
9. The NPE success rate in MA was 36% from 1997 to 2016 and the MEDIAN damages over $10M in WDDD's industry (Source: https://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2017-patent-litigation-study.pdf).
10. Activision reported $6.6 BILLION of revenue in 2016. No matter how you put it, if WDDD receives any royalty and can claim willful infringement, the damages will be in the tens of MILLIONS PER YEAR (Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/718877/000104746917001072/a2230993z10-k.htm).