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.
OT: DataRox......in light of this Forbes issue (which I haven't read yet), are you holding some other stocks in companies you figure to be key winners in 3g? If so, would you share a couple of names? Thanks in advance.
Danny D...yes, you're making sense in this post of yours. But, here's what gets my goat about a possible buyout.....when I see ronnie's and mschere's forward looking posts on expected/possible revenue times a 20 or 30 multiple, I see something greater than a $45 share price. Geez..some believe that will happen THIS year. Quite awhile ago someone posted a 3g link that showed a potential 2 trillion dollar industry with this next phase of wireless connectivity in the next decade. I can wait for some of that.
I am glad my cost basis is very low, and if I'd sell now I'd make a nice profit. But....I want some big bucks. Now, when you own 100,000 and more shares like some do here, a $45 price is a wonderful pot'o'gold. I know some of the "longs" who are getting out at $50. For me, I've got time and I'd like it to run some more. If we only get $45/$50...shoot, even $80...well, I don't need any different calculator than the one I already own!! Will I make money..sure...but won't I make more if IDCC stays independent?
Marchma....this and any other board needs balance. Sure hope you keep posting because this board will lose a good sense of that if you become just a lurker.
Loop... well stated, IMO. Glad I checked in the board to read one good post tonight. Thanks for your level headed thinking.
I think that reporter should have checked your Wireless Ledger site first! But I sure hope this is more than a $40 stock...well, I'll take it by the end of the year.
Maybe the person behind the article is that dipstick who pushes his "channel trading" program on the tv infomercial. You know, the one where they show IDCC in a perfect trading pattern....it could really mess his system if IDCC just continues UP!!
tlezer: He won't speculate..see message 26219. There was an exchange on this a couple weeks ago. Loop also asked where the 'yes' voters would draw a line in the sand regarding when enough is enough.
CorpBuyer..I sent you a PM on this issue.
Norfolk....wow, that post made ME feel like I let off some steam, too. Thanks for the gut response.
Now, if only "little boy blue come blow his horn" would give it a break......the yes/no options vote fight is wearing thin.
Try this....www.cfraonline.com
From CFRA's website.....
Mission and Background
Since 1994, CFRA, Inc., has been a leading independent financial research organization serving the investment community. Its quality-of-earnings analysis on more than 1,900 North American and European, Japanese, and Asia ex Japan companies is delivered daily over the internet to over 4,000 professionals at leading mutual and hedge funds in North America, Europe and Asia. CFRA warns investors, creditors, and other stakeholders about companies displaying deteriorating operational indicators, particularly those that employ unusual or aggressive accounting practices that camouflage such problems.
CFRA evolved out of Dr. Howard Schilit's decade-long academic research on financial debacles at public companies. As author of the leading book on the subject (FINANCIAL SHENANIGANS: How to Detect Accounting Gimmicks and Fraud in Financial Reports - 2nd edition, March 2002), Dr. Schilit and his team have warned investors about many recent accounting frauds.
OT: SEC article
Securities and Exchange Commission Requires Proxy Voting Policies, Disclosure by Investment Companies and Investment Advisers
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2003-12
Washington, D.C., January 23, 2003 — The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted to adopt rule amendments that would require mutual funds and other registered management investment companies to disclose their proxy voting policies and procedures and their actual proxy votes cast. These amendments are designed to enable fund shareholders to monitor their funds' involvement in the governance activities of portfolio companies and to encourage funds to vote their proxies in the best interest of fund shareholders. These rule amendments were adopted by a four-to-one vote of the Commission, with Commissioner Paul Atkins casting the dissenting vote.
The Commission also voted unanimously to adopt a new rule and rule amendments that would require registered investment advisers to adopt proxy voting policies and procedures, including procedures to address material conflicts of interest that may arise between the adviser and its clients. The rule and rule amendments are designed to ensure that advisers vote proxies in the best interest of their clients and provide clients with information about how their proxies are voted.
Investment Company Amendments
The amendments the Commission approved with respect to mutual funds and other registered management investment companies require the following.
Investment Company Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures. The amendments will require a fund to disclose in its registration statement the policies and procedures that it uses to determine how to vote proxies relating to portfolio securities. This disclosure would include the procedures that a fund uses when a vote presents a conflict between the interests of fund shareholders, on the one hand, and those of the fund's investment adviser, principal underwriter, or certain of their affiliates, on the other. Disclosure of proxy voting policies and procedures will apply to filings made on or after July 1, 2003.
Investment Company Proxy Voting Record. The amendments will require a fund to file new Form N-PX, containing its complete proxy voting record for the 12-month period ended June 30 by no later than August 31 of each year. Funds will be required to disclose the following information for each matter with respect to which a fund was entitled to vote: information identifying the matter voted on; whether the matter was proposed by the issuer or by a security holder; whether and how the fund cast its vote; and whether the fund cast its vote for or against management. Funds will be required to make their first proxy voting disclosures not later than August 31, 2004, for the 12 months ending June 30, 2004.
Availability of Proxy Voting Information to Fund Shareholders. A fund will be required to state in its reports to shareholders that information about the fund's proxy voting policies and procedures is available without charge, upon request, by calling a specified toll-free (or collect) telephone number; on the fund's Web site, if applicable; and on the SEC's Web site. A fund will be required to state in its registration statement and reports to shareholders that the fund files its proxy voting record with the SEC and that the record is available on the SEC's Web site and from the fund. A fund will be permitted to make the proxy voting record available either on its Web site or upon request.
Investment Adviser Amendments
The amendments that the Commission adopted with respect to investment advisers will require the following.
Investment Adviser Proxy Voting Policies and Procedures. The new rule will require investment advisers that exercise proxy voting authority over client securities to adopt and implement written policies and procedures for voting client proxies. The policies and procedures must be reasonably designed to ensure the adviser votes client securities in the best interests of clients, and they must address how the adviser addresses material conflicts of interest that may arise between the adviser and its clients.
Proxy Voting Information for Advisory Clients. The new rule will require investment advisers to describe their proxy voting policies and procedures to clients, and furnish a copy of them to clients upon request. The rule also requires investment advisers to tell clients how they can obtain information from the adviser on how the clients' securities were voted.
Investment advisers must have their proxy voting policies and procedures in place, and must have informed their clients of those policies and procedures, within 180 days of the publication of these rule amendments in the Federal Register.
The full text of detailed releases concerning each of these items will be posted to the SEC Web site as soon as possible.
http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2003-12.htm
Thanks for your reply...your theoretical 'yes' vote if the request was for 10-15 million ADDITIONAL options surprises me. Cute story, though......by the way, IDCC suits me fine.
Thanks for your reply...so you believe it takes more than 10 million options to recruit (NOT 'acquire' as in IDC acquires another company) and retain the best in the business?(The 5M that are available now plus 5M more) Fine, your opinion. Some on this board are saying the additional options are for acquisitions. Wow, 10 million ISOs is a heck of alot of options.
My question still is: IF the company were asking for an additional 10 or 15 million options would you still be voting 'yes' or would you want more information???? Isn't there a point where you ask "why" or "what for" or "what will this do to my investment as a shareholder?" I am suggesting there are different degrees of shareholder comfort with the vote on proxy #2. To me, 5 million ADDITIONAL available options seems excessive.
To answer your question as to my position.....never been a short. I am long since 1999 to the tune of X0,000 shares.
OT mschere..this isn't going well. I simply want to know if someone who is now voting 'yes' would still be voting 'yes' if the request for additional options was 10 or 15 million? Would you still vote 'yes' without having any further questions of the company? Isn't there a point (number of options requested) at which you would question WHY? And, if you would question 'why' does that all of a sudden say you distrust management? Maybe for some of us the point at which we question management is at 5 million shares.
I have a few questions if anyone cares to reply regarding the options issue. What if the proposal was for an additional 10 million ISO's or an additional 15 million instead of the additional 5 million that's on the proxy? Would the shareholders who vote 'yes' on no.#2 still just vote yes, or would they want more guidance from the company on why the additional shares are needed? If you were wanting more guidance from the company would that mean you distrust management?
I think posters on each side of this issue are labeling the other side with wrong motives. I don't distrust management. I do expect guidance on this issue. A few annual goals to measure performance would be nice,too.
"Actually, it may or may not be worth it, but until management tells us why they need the options we can't know."
That says it all.....neither the pro or con people debating this issue has the answer. I know I would make a more informed decision if I had the answer. And, yes, I have a call in to the company. No reply.
Yeah, who are those wasckley wabbits? And.....what difference does it make? It sounds like the acid has already burned a hole in your stomach.
I really respect your posts, Danny, but this one is amazing to me. I understand you and teecee are 'wise' in the ways of WS. But, the comments you make in your post about institutional investors makes them sound like a bunch of wimps who can't handle anything but calm waters.
You write, "They don't like bad publicity about their stocks even if in the long run it might do some good. They don't like management's attention being diverted by an organized, public shareholder revolt. They also don't want their clients asking why they hold stock in a company where the management is accussed of being greedy, especially in today's environment."
So, they're ok if they just bury their head in the sand? Hey, if in the long run it will do good, I'd be all for it! If management's attention is diverted by a press release then that explains why they never issue any. And why shouldn't clients ask if the company's management is greedy?? Doesn't the institutional guy have an answer that would assure the client the press release is misleading?
Or, just perhaps, the press release has some truth to it.
OT: Regarding the options request on the proxy, this I-Hub board's extremists on either side of the vote are no different than a political election where there's the very right wing conservatives versus the 'out-in-left' liberals. Somewhere in the middle, the old bell curve, is where the majority sits.
Today it's sort of comical to read some of the posts here.... some members are wanting to pick up their ball and go to another playground. Others are in a non-event mentality... 'what, me worry?' Some are dissecting the first 30 minutes of trading after a huge run up the prior day and proclaiming either doom and gloom or no big deal.
I trust the "middle of the pack" of shareholders is approaching their investment with alot less emotion.
OT: Those of us who don't know these faces can try and put the "poster to the face". I say Data is fourth person down on the right of picture, grey shirt, hair combed back. And Loop is the guy on the back left, sleeves rolled back and one arm on the table. Unless Loop is heading the table, but I don't picture Loop as having a mustache. (And, if Witch would have been there I'd say he looks like the guy at the front right.)
This price rise is terrific. I don't hate management, and I believe in the future of IDCC. However, I believe there are still plenty of existing ISO's available, and there is not a need for me to approve more at this time. Those in favor of approving more ISO's seem only to equate it with a share price rise. IMO, even if the price were tanking I think some posters would STILL approve more options.....hope we don't find out...I DO like a rising price.
HeeHee Heee...I can just see it...a rookie employee at an institution, running down the hall, "Hey, Lou, the IDCC chat room is in a tizzy! They've got weak knees and weaker hearts...teecee can't even calm them down!"
IMO, I think it's a bit of an insult to the "big boys" implying they make their moves in a stock based on a chat room attitude. But, then again, teecee...you are the WS expert. I guess you know these things.
Good post, IMO. You say,"most people will disagree...", but it seems over 85% DO AGREE that existing options available are enough for now. NO MORE. And, regarding the 'over 400% share price rise' stuff......this stock also dropped from 82 to under 5 bucks. It's been on the mend since '00.
According to Yahoo IDCC site, it was a planned sale on 3-31-03.
art' 59.....if you love it so much why don't you buy it and buy it and buy it? IMO, your "sell it" mantra is imbecile.
OT: Place your bets.....what will happen first? Insiders have another stock sale, or a usually respectable poster replies to Once? Why in the world can't you skip past his posts????? When I log in to IHUB he's on filter. If I come here to just check in quickly and not log in, I see his posts. No big deal to see his posts. I skip over them. WHY do some of you engage in dialog??????
Loop, you said "I am opting to cease posting because I want management working on matters that will benefit the shareholders and share price. I do not want them distracted in any way. I was the first to ask others to allow them time to complete the big 3."
Gimme a break....a poster on an investment chat board distracts our management?! Incredible.
Your post, plus 14202 and 14203 are refreshing to read after all the chatter of buy-outs. Let's just watch IDCC grow into something enormous.
My question for anyone is this..five or six years from now, will it make any difference in IDCC stock price whether we settled with ERICY as we did versus settling for what many had hoped...the 300-500 million? It's certainly holding the price down now, but will it matter 5-6 years from now? Thanks for replies.
OT: teecee Lighten up a little...I generally enjoy your posts and comments. It seems, though, that sometimes posters who have been in IDCC for ages have tunnel vision and can't let others ask questions or express another point of view without being damned a basher short. That's just not the case.
By the way, regarding your comment 'take a number'....you better refill the number dispensing machine...it was empty.
First sentence of last paragraph. Plus the fact Clarence takes the time to actually make a helpful reply.
Thank you very much, Clarence. I hope teecee read your reply, too!
IF there's a trial and IDCC wins and ERICY appeals....what would be the grounds for appeal? If an appeal is denied by the court do IDCC and ERICY negotiate a settlement, or take what the court awards? Thanks for your reply...sorry if the question is elementary.
Sheesh, teecee, I think pretty much everyone here now knows your feeling on the whole marchma/CO pension fund/failed meeting....GIVE IT A REST! Thanks.
TC or anyone....what if the 'deal' is just the settlement for past infringment, and no 3g license? A 3g license would have to come soon, but if it isn't part of this suspected settlement how do you think WS will react?
Jimlur,regarding your comment: "Some ain't going to like it but if IDCC gets an agreemnent with ERICY they will get bought out." Well, in all likelihood we'll have an agreement with ERICY or a trial win...and probably by summer IMO. So your thinking is IDCC will be bought out in 2003? Thanks for your reply.
Thanks, Ronnie. IMO, there's a silent majority supporting your efforts...I know I do.
Very OT,but funny...from another board:
Posted by: SoxFan
In reply to: Bob Zumbrunnen who wrote msg# 19978 Date:1/31/2003 1:40:50 PM
Post #of 19992
Wondering around this little Ihub village I stumbled across a place called "Chat" (which I thought all these boards were chat boards). Somehow I got logged in and there was another person all alone in the "chat room." I felt like I just walked in on someone sitting on the john. My name gets put up in lights like I'm part of the perp walk. I immediately left and felt eyes on my back pleading with me to stay.
What's that place all about? And why would someone be in there all alone? Should I have some type of warning or at least a sign saying -"occupied" before throwing me in there? Some people have sensitive feelings you know. We are not all like Churak.
Thanks, Data. Not new at all....but I readily admit I don't understand every detail of all the standards stuff. Half the time folks are posting industry articles suggesting we should all read them, but you don't give us the benefit of YOUR technical expertise and commentary. We're just supposed to read everything because it's linked? Thanks for your extra explanation today....