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.
It's not the same article. A lot of the same text, but more specifics and more negatives. I think after some complained that he didn't know what he was talking about, he added specific numbers to make it appear that he knows more.
Mr. Berko apparently didn't like whatever people here sent him. He revised his feelings on IDCC, and made them much more negative (from http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/newssun/city/5_3_WA21_BERKO_S10921.htm)
Dear W.A.:
Many investors feel better blaming their mistakes on a stupid broker rather than the stupid person who signed the check. And while your broker made a mistake of "magnanimous pretensions" recommending that stock, he doesn't deserve the agony of weekly phone calls from you.
InterDigital Communications Corp. (IDCC-$32.83), a $163 million revenue company, develops and licenses digital wireless technologies to semiconductor companies, handset manufacturers and other equipment users. The company owns a plethora of patents covering base-band products and software using CDMA and TDMA (code and time division multiple access) wireless telecommunications standards.
IDCC's top customers are NEC (31 percent of sales), Sharp (24 percent) Siemens (15 percent) and Sony Ericsson (11 percent). That's 81 percent of total revenues, and a loss of one or two of those customers might require heaven's help to keep IDCC in business.
The company has been designing, discovering, patenting, researching and exploring the opportunities on the periphery of the exotic wireless spectrum for more than a dozen years without any real mentionable or memorable success. However, it is notable that you bought the stock in the mid-$70 range at the top of the tech market in early 2000. Back in those halcyon days, IDCC revenues were just shy of $60 million.
There were no profits in sight, but you and other "tech-heads" were giddy with greed (like recent speculators in the housing market) blithely tossing money after opportunity without regard to common sense. Candidly, I doubt you'll live long enough to break even.
While IDCC has a solid cash cache in the bank, zero debt of which to speak, 54 million shares outstanding and a $1.5 billion market cap, there is certainly no reason for the shares to trade at today's exaggerated price. I understand management reckons IDCC will earn $4.10 this year, but those earnings are an anomaly and are expected to retreat to a more normal $1.10-$1.13 next year. And that's not exciting enough to warrant a $32.83 stock price. Estimated 2007 revenues of less than $230 million are certainly an unexciting nonevent!
The shares zoomed from $19 in January to $36 by July on the belief that new licensing agreements would command some huge numbers and command them quickly. However, those third-generation agreements with larger original equipment manufacturers are taking immeasurably longer than anticipated.
The ongoing dispute between Nokia and Qualcomm is causing other OEMs to delay their agreements with IDCC until the industrywide 3G licensing structure improves. That could be a few winters away.
Your broker's recommendation to buy 400 more shares gives me the willies. I suggest that you sell the 400 shares that you bought at $74, fess up and take your loss.
You just can't get anywhere trying to beat a dead horse to death.
Based on what is known today, IDCC's 54 million shares are vastly overpriced. Piper Jaffray (a classy regional firm) agrees and just ranked IDCC to "underperform." Meanwhile, it's not a far stretch to envision IDCC trading in the midteens once again.
This is not a motion to quash. Its a routine set of objections to a 30b6 notice, no different than objections that are served with interrogatories or requests to admit. Nokia is simply putting IDCC on notice of objections, and the parties will confer as to those objections. If they cannot resolve the dispute, then the parties may seek court intervention.
Wow. It used to take a few days to run up and down, now the MMs can do it in a morning (2 hours).
The award may require that Samsung pay certain funds by a date certain, and that penalties or additional interest accrue if the sum is not paid. Samsung, in an abundance of caution, may want that Arbitral Order stayed to avoid even the argument that it owes extra funds. That is probably one of - if not the - first issues the Court will address.
Now a block trade of 130,364 at $33.03 (avgprice). Still bids in the $33.78 range.
eInfochips Inc., with offices in Santa Clara, Calif., and Ahmedabad and Pune, India, is a leading provider of cutting edge ASIC design and verification services, embedded systems solutions and IP cores. The company's capabilities extend from specification to system, with knowledge on ASIC design & verification, physical design, board design and embedded firmware development. The company's India and U.S. design centers have delivered SOC and embedded solutions to a variety of customers thus increasing their cost effectiveness, reducing their time-to-market and growing their market strength. A partial list of customers includes Agere Systems, ATI, Broadcom, Cypress Semiconductors, IDT, InterDigital , Rambus, and Texas Instruments. For more information on eInfochips, visit www.einfochips.com.
100 share trade at 33.78. 300 share bid at same price. What's up?
Objections to 30b6 notices are very, very common. Nothing to read into here.
Regardless, the award did apparently include at least one monetary component. That component is what Samsung may want stayed.
I suspect the award require Samsung to pay in a set number of days, and Samsung is trying to get a stay of the award (and that requirement) before they are technically required to pay.
Samsung argues that the award is moot (Count Five of the Petition). That is one ground for mootness.
Thanks, this is the language I was looking for. I agree that this makes it less likely that LG is the company. As for the confirmation timing, I think it is impossible to guess what schedule the Court will issue...different courts and judges move at different paces. As for the stay, I do agree that it is more likely than not that the Court will not require Samsung to pay the money now, but rather will stay its obligation to pay until the petition and cross-petition are ruled on. No bond needed for that, and it would be a waste of time for IDCC to appeal (as that would take longer than the stay would last).
I disagree. Samsung is not asking (nor could it ask) the Court to apply LG's rates to it. So, its an issue the Court would never address. If this speculation is correct, Samsung is simply saying that we are no longer tied to Nokia, so the rates set by Nokia are moot. Instead, we are tying ourselves to LG. If there is a dispute between IDCC and Samsung regarding LG later, that will be the subject of yet another arbitration. Samsung cannot ask this Court to apply LG rates.
Yes, one reason could be settlement. But, there can be other reasons as well. For example, if Samsung was permitted to elect another manufacturer to tie it to, such that its initial election to Nokia is irrelevant. I'm not saying Samsung is permitted to do this, but its possible it could try (if the contract allows it or is ambiguous on the issue). As I indicated, a prior IDCC SEC filing alluded to this, when it said depending on how the tribunal rules, Samsung may conditionally elect someone else (or something to that effect). I may be remembering wrong, and thus stand corrected.
I think the mootness argument has to deal with something IDCC said in an earlier SEC filing...that Samsung would try and invoke another manufacturer using its MFL. Perhaps Samsung is arguing that the award is moot because it is not electing the Nokia rate, but another one (say LG).
This stock is so predictable.
1. Big run on anticipation
2. Drop when we win due to no 3G contract
3. Run-up again anticipating 3G deal as part of settlement
4. Drop when appeal filed
5. Run-up as we anticipate settlement with 3G (to happen soon)
6. Drop when the settlement is for 2G only (to maybe happen soon)
Now that the Samsung petition to vacate has been formally filed, with the options folks and shorts try and use that as an excuse to move us to $30. They shouldn't since we all expected this. But, with this stock and the power of the shorts in the past, you never know. Hopefully we stay strong!
The new PACER filing in Samsung, while disclosing the general basis for the motion to vacate, do not provide many facts to allow us to evaluate the claims. I do note that Samsung's last argument - vacate on grounds of mootness - interests me. I wonder what Samsung is claiming mooted the award. I appears to be a one paragraph throw away argument, but i'm curious what it is. As for the rest, only time will tell...but, i'm glad we have the strong burden of overturning arbitration awards.
Quite surprising. This leads me to believe that perhaps there is a light at the end of the tunnel.
i am more than happy to admit my mistake if I was wrong. I'd like to see the exact language.
What do you base your statement on that IDCC and Nokia have a deal that IDCC won't sue? I can't imagine IDCC would agree to that given Nokia's current suit against it in Delaware.
Why, Nokia and Samsung are currently in the same 3G position now that there is no Nokia 3G contract?
It does. Otherwise, they are simply called Defendant or Respondent.
I would expect Samsung to answer the Complaint, and file a cross-complaint asking to have the award vacated or modified. Samsung will use this to: (a) have some leverage (no matter how small) to negotiate a new deal (just like Nokia used it to get out of 3G payments until April and (b) buy some time for the parties to negotiate.
If WiMax became more successful or even completely overtook GSM, what would that do to IDCC's 3G revenues? Do we have WiMax patents?
Samsung WILL appeal this ruling to the district court (or at least start the process). This became clear in the latest PACER filing, which is Samsung's disclosure statement. While it is innocous in itself, it is telling in the signature page in referring to Samsung as not only the respondent, but also the cross-petitioner.
This stock is a true contrarian lately. Down on up days and up on down days.
The conspiracy theory can end...she is very likely at the publicly announced conference in Amsterdam.
who raised us from market perform to outperform? when? price target? new report?
Then how do we ever make money from Infineon selling chips with our software? From sales to companies that don't license from us?
Do we have any understanding as to how much revenue we will get from this? And, when it will be recognized?
No. It's not an appeal, its a confirmation at the district court leve.
Samsung case has been assigned to Judge Karas (not Pauley)
Okay, thanks.
Thats where i got the info from.
TelecomKorea has a different take......
GSM Royalties; What is the Worst Scenario for Samsung?
CJ Investment & Securities said in Monday’s report if Samsung agrees on the running royalty rate of 1.5% as InterDigital requested, the Korean handset maker should spend 213 billion won ($ 222 million) on the royalty payment out of 14.2 trillion won ($ 14.8 billion), the company’s revenue from the worldwide GSM sales for this year. It would reduce the company’s operating margin for the mobile phone business by 1.2 percent point from originally projected 9.7%, according to the report.
However, as Samsung plans to appeal against the US court ruling and the company has earmarked certain amounts for royalty payments, the worst scenario will hardly come true, the securities firm carefully remarked. Samsung Electronics has a specialized patent team consisting of over 250 members which will be nearly doubled by 2010.
The US court recently made a ruling that Samsung should pay $ 134 million to InterDigital for the use of GSM technologies.
In January, LG Electronics hit a deal with InterDigital and agreed to pay $ 95 million each year by 2008, in other words, $ 285 million in total.
Samsung news????? The Korean Broadcast Service (KBS) reported on Friday that "Samsung said Friday that it decided to accept arbitration in a contract dispute with InterDigital." It is unclear whether that means the company accepted to pay the award. Full article below:
Samsung to Pay $134 Mil. to US Firm in Royalty Dispute
Friday, September 8, 2006 18:32:54
A United States court has ruled that Korea’s Samsung Electronics should pay one-hundred-34 million U.S. dollars in royalties to American wireless technology company InterDigital Communications.
Samsung said Friday that it decided to accept arbitration in a contract dispute with InterDigital, which had demanded that the Korean electronics giant pay royalties for its sales of mobile phones based on the U.S. firm’s patented technologies.
LG Electronics has also reportedly agreed to pay $285 million in royalties to InterDigital.
Heartland Value beats stronger, thanks to tech
By Danielle Kost
Bloomberg News
Bill Nasgovitz turned around the $1.78 billion Heartland Value Fund's performance this year by buying more shares in wireless and computer-software companies.
The fund returned 7.6 percent through Aug. 9, the fifth highest among 138 funds that focus on smaller companies and search for stocks considered inexpensive based on earnings and other measures, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Heartland Value trailed most of its peers the past two years.
Nasgovitz raised the fund's holdings of technology companies to 19.9 percent of assets as of June from 12.8 percent in December. The increase is in keeping with his reliance on the value-investing strategy developed by the late Benjamin Graham.
"Technology is under pressure and out of favor," Nasgovitz, 61, said in an interview from the offices of Heartland Advisors in Milwaukee. "It's a mirror image of what we had six or seven years ago, when the Internet, media and technology were the frenzy."
The manager has lifted returns by increasing bets on companies including InterDigital Communications, a maker of mobile-phone software, whose shares have climbed 52 percent this year.
The median market value of companies in which Heartland Value invests is $192 million. The fund had 225 holdings as of June, and industrial and information-technology companies made up almost 42 percent of assets.
Two years ago, Nasgovitz was the second-worst performer among small-cap value managers. The fund returned 9.1 percent, 13 percentage points less than the Russell 2000 Value Index.
Nasgovitz, who co-manages the fund with Brad Evans and Hugh Denison, blamed the weak performance on technology and health-care holdings.
The fund produced a 2 percent return in 2005, ranking 109th of 130 competing funds and lagging behind its benchmark by 2.8 percentage points.
Heartland Value returned an average of 16 percent in the past three years, trailing almost two-thirds of its peers.
The fund returned 14 percent in the past five years, outperforming 80 percent of its category, according to Morningstar.
The top-performing fund this year among Heartland Value's peers is the Wasatch Micro Cap Value Fund, managed by Brian Bythrow and John Malooly.
The $93.5 million fund, which is closed to new investment, is up 11 percent.
Nasgovitz made his first stock purchase at 13 with money earned from delivering newspapers. He later sold the shares at a loss.
"It was a disaster," Nasgovitz said. "But I got the bug nonetheless."
In 1983, he founded Heartland Advisors, which now oversees $2.9 billion, and started the fund the following year. He's put $9.6 million of his own money in Heartland's funds.
Nasgovitz buys the "smallest of the small," typically companies with market values of less than $1 billion.
He targets those with little or no debt whose shares trade at no more than 14 times his estimate for next year's earnings and less than seven times their cash flow.