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.
redviking...Thanks for that. So true! "The Farce That is the Market". Sad.
gungrey...Guess that's what I'm saying. It's hard for me to believe that GS and their clients, who are used to making a lot of money, are interested in a 1.5% dividend or a 35% return (upon conversion) over a little less than 5 year period. IMO.
It will be interesting to see who IDCC selects to replace these two Directors. To me, the timing of their departures is suspect. Since the announcement of the new convert issuance, I have suspected that a major event is imminent. I.e., Major settlement and/or new license, or a change in control. WIth today's announcement, I'm leaning toward the latter. JMO
jeffree...I might be missing something, but I believe the next SI report (March 24) will include all shorts except for today's action (3/11). I.e. all shorts through 3/10 (trade date), or 3/13 (settlement date) should be reported.
data......Yes it did react differently first time around. I think this time, with the unwinding of the first covert in conjunction with closing on the new one will be the difference. Anyway, after tomorrow it won't matter. Just some idle musing on a quiet day.
data.....IMO, the px should trend back to the $53.61, upon which the convert was priced, for the closing tomorrow. Then what? Who knows.
Jim.... Not crazy about being in bed with either of the lead underwriters. In fact, IMO, I believe they both represent a sizable portion, if not all, of the continual and long-lived short position. It will be interesting to see what, if any, changes there are to the SI in the next report.
Sail....It might stay that way until closing. (next Wednesday) IMO.
Thanks, OD. My eyes glazed over when I read it the first time. IMO, pretty complex but that is the gist of it.
gatticaa...My belief that the stock is being "stabilized" by the buyers' representatives comes from 50 years as an investor and 20 as a broker. I cannot point to a particular SEC reg., but I believe that once a company announces its engagement of a broker, and its intention to sell securities, that broker is allowed to short stock in order keep the price within a range that is amenable to both parties. So, no, it isn't insider trading. (perhaps OD could dig for the regs. surrounding this situation)
When you think about it, this only makes sense. Doing this type of deal is a very fluid situation. If the price target for the deal were to go way below a certain range, the seller would walk away. Conversely, the buyer would walk if it went way above this range.
As far as the actual execution of the "stabilization" is concerned, these days, it is very easy for the broker to stabilize (manipulate) the price. Their ability to short stock, without locating and borrowing real shares (the Madoff Exemption) and the ability to sell these shares on down-ticks (2007 removal of Up-tick Rule) makes it a piece of cake. So, for the most part, these shorted shares are covered quickly as the stock price is moved down and loose hands sell. I wouldn't be surprised if they were flat by the end of the day. JMO.
vg....As I said at the beginning of this topic, no one outside the negotiations CAN know really know what's going on. So, we are all just guessing. However, whenever any type of financing is agreed to in principle, the buyers will short stock in the open market to cap the price of the financing (in this case, the conversion price). It's just the way it works. Also, IMO, the reason the deal was not done and then announced has something to do with negotiating the extinguishment of the existing notes. For all we know, could be the same group. Like I said, most of this is a guess.
triangle...Very doubtful that is the reason. It's very simple: the terms of the conversion have not been set. The buyers of the offering are not going to let the price go higher. They are going to put a cap on it. When the terms are set, the stock (imo) will resume its upward move.
IMO., with the terms still being negotiated, I would expect a halt in the recent upward movement in the SP or, if anything, a small downside movement until deal is done.
LTE... One way or another, this new issuance will replace the existing notes. If not, then I withdraw my statement about having faith in the way the Company is managing things.
OD..... Unless the Company has previously purchased the Notes, at any time prior to 5:00 p.m., New York City time, on the Business Day immediately preceding December 15, 2015,...........
I agree that a conversion has not occurred. Unless I am missing something, however it appears that the Company can repurchase the notes prior to December, 15, 2015. IMO, they will be repurchasing the original Notes with the cash from the new issuance.
IMO, there is no one on this board who CAN know what's going on with this offering. I can say with confidence that this is not a negative event. It is up to all of us, individually, to trust, or not, what the Company is doing to increase shareholder value. I do.
mickey... Re: options, I understand. It won't lower the SI, but it would contain losses of current shorts out and create new shorts at higher prices. Agree with your fundamental analysis. In the end, that's all that matters.
Maybe, maybe not. The option trading in the 50's, 52.5's and 55's yesterday and so far today is unusually high. Could be something coming or shorts using options to cover stock they can't buy. IMO.
Unusual, but welcomed opening. eom.
What's incredible to me is that, in the face of a multitude of indications to the contrary, people still believe we have free and integrous markets and that there are honest and incorruptible people and agencies standing by to ensure that. Dream on.
FISH...Don't know if $1.75 slide will be reversed but, Q1 guidance is huge. Should produce earnings of around $.80/sh. IMO.
OD....Yes I am somewhat familiar 10B-18, but don't see what that has to do with my speculation. I.e., if the buyback is done, it's done; doesn't matter what plan they are using. If IDCC were to have a major (I used the phrase "sea-change) event in the offing, I think any plan would have to be suspended for safe-harbor reasons. If you are able to, let's let it go.
OD...I'll say one more thing about this thread: I gave my opinion and then gave my reasoning. If I had facts to "support" my opinion it wouldn't be an opinion it would be truth. This is one of those very rare instances where I think you are off base and are trying to fog the issue at hand because you made a not very well-thought out reply.
OD.....Beg to differ. IDCC has discussions going on all the time. Some that may end in a deal, some that won't. It seems, by your reckoning, that they would never be able to buy back a share because they are always privy to "inside information". When a potential deal becomes a real deal, then they are prohibited from buying due to insider regs. Where else would one draw the line?
dndodd.... To elaborate: IDCC has been buying back relentlessly since (I believe the $30s). They seem to have had no compunction to stop at $50.+. IMO, they have one or more "sea-change" discussions ongoing and this has emboldened them to pay up. If this is the case, they could continuing buying their stock, all the way through negotiations, up until an agreement had been reached. So, yes, I hope it is for good reasons, likewise. We'll see.
dndodd....Speaking of the buyback...
I believe the buyback has been completed or possibly suspended for regulatory reasons. JMO.
jist1....IMO, the Company may have completed the current buyback allotment.
redviking........Are we set up for disappointing the Street? Absolutely a possibility. With so many shares short and very few available to cover, a "miss" (conveniently fabricated) would be just what they need to help the cause. MO.
dndodd..It'll be interesting to see if there is some sort of investigation. Two days before option expiration???.... a lot of Jan 20 calls were bot for pennies and rose to well over $2.00. Also, predictable that the story "broke" over Reuters, affirming their growing reputation as the "news source" for the manipulators.
FISH....IMO, the unwinding of that dividend play is not working out for someone.
vg.....amen to that! Wouldn't it be great if, just once.........?
Doc.... I don't have the definitive answer and I have no desire to delve into it, however, IMO (if this indeed is a dividend play), They are either 1) playing some sort of arbitrage with the "mark-down" of the stock on ex-day or 2) they are taking "possession" of shorted shares for a small amount of time and capturing an "in-lieu-of" dividend from the shorted shares.
Doc....Actually, I just got off the phone with my ex-partner (broker). He spoke with an options trader who says it IS some sort of dividend capture "game" that hedgies and others will play. He added that the CBOE will not allow these kinds of trades, but Philly will. (for whatever that is worth).
One way to cover huge amounts of stock that can't be bought in the market.
redviking......IMO, a large contributing factor to the recent rise is the, at least to this point, controlled and orderly covering of the short position. However, the shorts' quandary is compounded by new interest in the IDCC story and the fact that they are competing with the Company to buy what is available. I love our position!
turney....Huh? Unless one is to the manor-born, how does one acquire capital? Answer (in a capitalistic system) is through risk-taking, i.e investing. Although, on the surface, you are wrong, you have touched on the fact that the system does breed greed. Hence, we are now witnessing the end of capitalism as we know it. Kind of convoluted, I know, but MO.
dndodd...I didn't mean to imply that they never get caught. It is now simply easier to control their position under most circumstances. In the case of the buyout rumors in 2011, a lot of "new" money came in due to the comp vis-a-vis the Nortel patent sale. I.e., there is a point where they run out of bullets. I do agree, with substantially improved fundamentals and the prospect of a big new licensee anytime, we could get a squeeze. Just less likely than in 1999. MO.
dndodd.....Interesting. Those were the days of real short squeezes. Not anymore. Since 1999, the Madoff Exemption came into being and the uptick-rule was eliminated. These two factors enable the shorts to (usually quite effectively) do the rope-a-dope when backed into a corner.
sjaym... I attended the annual meeting during Gercenstein's first year as CEO. I knew we (and he) were in trouble when he opened his speech, holding up a glass of water, and said "I want you all to know this is not a glass of gin"! HUH! Really?
dndodd.... That's great, but meaningless. Look at PPO-----120.6% institutional ownership! Go figure! Seems impossible in a zero-sum market. But......