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.
Wilco, there's a sentence in there where I used the word through instead of threw...probably plenty more mistakes like that...hope some share my sentiments and that you can clean up any mistakes so it's communicated in a more professional manner.
It can stay if noone delete's it - It's just noise that's all. If things don't change in the way management feeds off any value the shareholder's ever may have seen in this company - I'm ready to call myself and idiot and move on. Because of the fundamentals I might stick around awhile but clearly ready to admit that I was an idiot for investing in this stock and putting my faith in a purely self-serving management and board. They are not fiduciaries for us so it seems.
Mickey, I wanted to post this on Friday, but being it was Friday and options expiration, and a down day I waited to reply. I hold no options but do hold long shares.
What do you think the answer is? Your idea of paying in cash is a good one, but it failed to send management the real message that they need to hear.
I will admit that I cannot get over the 175 percent bonuses and it's poor timing a year ago and it has soured my views on Bill Merritt as being someone that is going to be a champion for the shareholders. It's entirely possible Bill's not to blame, but I consider it his watch as CEO to guard shareholder interests. But I'm still hanging on after the failed slimchip program and a lost round to Nokia completely amazed that management saw fit to overcompensate themselves at such a time.
I think what they did this time last year was irresponsible for a number of reasons:
1) Managaement communicated earnings guidance and should have managed wall street expectations and then placed value on it - they do have a responsibility in their guidance to tell wall street what to expect on earnings. If accounting-wise they are not duty bound to in some way include a 175 percent bonus level payout that blind-sided wall street and shareholders I don't know what to say other than what they did was completely wrong and undeserved.
2) I think someone did the math and showed that they could have met the street number had they not awarded the bonuses.
3) Managememnt had not met their stated goals, their slimchip program had failed and they bailed, and lastly they fired employees to shore up their bottom line, then they completely pissed on the bottom line to reward themselves far exceeding the bonus levels they communicated to shareholders.
Was the extra 75 percent bonus over personal trauma they felt for having to fire people, and had the CFO performed any mathematical calculations on how many FTEs they could have saved just by sticking to granting themselves only 100 percent of the bonuses that they failed to meet the mark for receiving?
Do you know of any other public company where that could happen? - aside from recipients of gov't bailout money
Are you surprised the shareprice dropped about 30 percent by close of day 2 after their bonus awards?
Is there any surprise our stock is trading at a PE of 10 while the industry average is 15 - what's not to like!???
Do you feel that shows any regard whatsoever for the shareholders or the employees that were fearing for their jobs or those that just lost them?
Do you feel like it hints to the "real" purpose of the buybacks - a perpetual one-step forward and one step back to line the pockets of management with excesses in compensation!
Do you feel at a time when they bailed out of a program and are firing people that it's an environment for anyone to receive a 175 percent bonus, simply for executing damage control over a failed venture? Would it alter your opinion of the company and management if you had just become an X employee? Do you feel like damage control over failure and not meeting their mark warrants a 175 bonus?
It was a return to a prior era before Merritt, so being it's going on under his watch I think a bit less of him and the CFO as being the ones who are finally going to be champions for shareholder value. That sentiment could be entirely mis-directed - I don't know. But like it or not - change is coming and I hope it is positive. Seemingly, Bill Merritt started out on the right note, but someone from his level on up caved in to greed just like old times.
I want to see this investment out. There has been a shift in fundamentals that keeps me here in hopes that the stock will take off. The last several conference calls, it just seems they are lacking vision and don't know how to handle success outside of padding their pockets - the shareholder value part seems to be lip service. Merritt's comments during his butt-chewing from BN, sort of agreeing that if they could not do some strong value-add with the cash that they should give it back to shareholders sounded like pure back-peddling to me. Plus he through the CFO under bus with a comment about the CFO being the one that wanted to hold on to the cash. Isn't Bill Merritt the boss over that decision?
Because I can't seem to get past it, I seldom post anymore. I am hopeful the company will find it's legs and do something for shareholder value, and communicate a meaningful vision forward. In their current personality crisis greed seems to be the only constant.
I normally feel that if I don't have good things to say that I'm not going to constantly wine about it since nothing is gained and it's counter-productive to my investment. So after this rant I will go back to lurking - no need to thank me
I wonder what the upcoming bonuses will be? Can anyone tell me what the current goals and criteria are? I hope I simply missed it when they shared the latest goals with the shareholders after their 175 percent bonus award - or are they still 5 percent of market licensing away from another feeding?
Maybe OldDog could help me out here to present facts that would help me feel differently and better about things to show the errors in my thinking and a more positive outlook. I would welcome those facts and insights. I would appreciate that help - we all need friends to help us see clearly at times.
I do not feel that IDCC has accounting-wise - dealing with no investment banking types, no debt and flush with cash had done anything significant other than bailing from the slimchip program and firing employees that would earn the CFO the type of bonus he was awarded - at least not when they funded their bonuses on an 11 cent miss in earnings! If there is accountability - an 11 cent miss in earnings says a loud NO to a 175 percent bonus! Sort of like 2 plus 2 is 4. Can anyone spell A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y to S H A R E H O L D E R V A L U E!!!
Management heads should have rolled for it, but there is no accountability, and the independent directors are not doing their job either - it's a sham. Is it Roath who consults other companies for achieving shareholder value that just sold his gravy train of IDCC shares to buy shares of a parking management corporation in the open market to secure his position there.
I guess now he is truly an "independent director" - obviously one who could care less about IDCC and has found his way to another green pasture. The buybacks are all one step forward, and then a step back over their excess compensation and where does that put the shareholders - it puts alot of them dying with their dreams unrealized and it affects everyone in their families, and their children and grandchildren - our beloved Mschere being a great example.
When I look at Mschere's picture floating around on these posts to honor him - it truely moves me emotionally. More so in Harry's passing. The emotion it stirs in me, is that Carpe Diem type feeling over the stark contrast and completely unbalanced wealth generation that has taken place between management and shareholder's of this corporation over the years. Most of the pockets that were lined oh so well at the dilution of shareholder value are not even around - they came in, got rich quick on excess pay and moved on.
Are you a spring chicken, Mickey? I have dreams too and my risk in buying shares of IDCC is a risk no less than that of Harry Campagna - God rest his soul. Did anyone notice alot of selling or changes in beneficial ownership when Mshere passed away? I bet he put every bit as much risk on the line and received little to nothing for it as a shareholder - the contrast is a crime. In viewing the contrast I cannot see where one deserved rewards in perpetuity, and the other deserved to die without realizing an ample reward as a shareholder.
There should have been a middle ground and there wasn't. There should be a middle ground and there isn't.
And most shareholder's stick up for this excess content to live their own life vicariously thinking about how the management's holiday shopping spree turned out, and ready to chase a carrot stick for the next twenty years.
Defending management, saying you had a one time opportunity to sell for a profit in 99, or you might have better money if you would smartly trade the stock. That's all B.S. It's because of a lack of accountability, and a failure to reward shareholders for their risk - only caring about themselves. That's the IDCC story for ten years at least.
Will anybody ever ask management a tough question about accountability on a conference call or at an annual meeting about why they are paying themselves these huge bonuses without meeting their own goals?
So Mickey, I think your post yesterday to Janet about paying in cash was ok, but failed to send the message about re-evaluating the bonus levels they actually do receive, and that they should first earn a bonus before granting one.
Right now - we are all suffering over the lost round in the fight with Nokia - are they going to recognize any sort of accountability for their strategic planning on that loss?
They need to first earn the bonuses they are getting by 1) Setting goals visible to shareholders to measure accountability and 2) Meet the goal to earn the bonus. It is that simple - I could care less how they pay for it. 3) Pay the bonus level that they set forth - not 175 percent of it.
I just would like to see the accountability to shareholders that is not even present at the company.
As Jimlur would like to see - why don't some of the management team put their money in the pot with shareholder's and see their returns by adding shareholder value and reward themselves by their performance that way? Not one person within management feels compelled to do that because they don't have too - it's all given to them over and over.
I would like to see them communicate a positive vision for prosperity to shareholders even if it's a forward statement - we have to have a leader that communicates a plan, or else recognize the shareholders do exist by giving back value to them if they cannot find more than a nominal return on investment. The last several calls that vision forward is missing.
I probably repeated every point several times - thanks for letting me vent - I'll go back to lurking until better days arrive, or I will sell if the mangement team cannot somehow demonstrate they can manage success for the benefit of the shareholders instead of only themselves.
Mickey, I think you should attach a picture of Mshere, and all the shareholder's who have died awaiting their financial reward for taking a risk on IDCC, as a ghost of christmas past message to management. They need a visit like that - I only wish they could be paid a real visit like that to chill their bones and shake them out of their own luxury with a newly found conscience like in that wonderful story.
jai, if you are trying to win folks over with the logic of scrapping the poison pill, the author of that post Carl Icahn, by virtue of his own actions and purpose in the investment landscape would negate any good sense the article might contain - likely counter-productive to your goals if you are trying to win friends and influence people
I'm sure some would like to make out BN as a wolf in sheep's clothing too. I take his proposition more at face value to the points he makes. Entrenchment and accountability to shareholder interests are two very good points made in the proposal.
DClarke, I hate to break it to you, but dmiller just now submitted a valuable post.
Your subconcious mind must have blocked it out to kill the pain
Mickey, so how does it feel to be a monkey's uncle? I am just kidding around. Welcome back to the sanitarium.
squingeqbob, you hit the mark on that one. RIP Harry
Who says crime doesn't pay - just ask Samsung...no rest for the wicked
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091229/ap_on_bi_ge/as_skorea_samsung_tycoon
I wonder how many of those malcontents are just whining to get through the current pain and will simply fall in love with the stock all over again and join the Houston 100 once it gets to $30?...probably me included
Olddog967, you sure know how to hunt! That find is uplifting.
Nice summary of anticipated events
Thanks for the insight into the program and awards!
It's because they made him the patsy in the last conference call as the one who was hoarding the cash and not giving anything back to shareholders.
That might be for the LTCP plan that is in effect that shareholders approved. The 175 percent bonuses that were given out were never included in earnings guidance and we resultingly missed our expected wall street numbers by 11 cents because of the surprise, and then took an immediate 20 percent haircut in the share price. I'm a long-term investor and simply view their greed as one of the biggest risks to holding the stock and one of the reasons our stock price is not where it should be today.
The Net, thanks to Harry and his "independent" comrades you can bet they both met and exceeded it - being completely subjective. If you can make 175 percent out of a failure to meet objectives, what does that add up to if they actually meet an established milestone?
ms3, LOL while I was hoping IDCC was up to the task - I'll take it if Apple can get the job done, and maybe IDCC can at least put in a few hard kicks while they're down.
I've always been amazed that IDCC is persistent enough to kick butt in the appeals process, so I hope justice will prevail.
It would sure make Apple a powerhouse of intellectual property for wireless! Could you imagine the possibilities:
What I like most about the Nokia/Apple lawsuit is that it creates multiple litigation fronts for Nokia, who who already has declining market share. It will force the company from the finance side to scrutinize every penny they are spending on litigation, and for those where it's a losing battle, or promises to spur ongoing litigation, such as with a future drawn out LTE licensing battle - they are going to seek out a settlement if Apple stands it's ground.
I guess my expectation because this is a battle of giants, is that Nokia is going to come to terms with Apple first in a cross-licensing deal, but who knows?
IQ: Nokis greasing palms is looking very plausible to me.
And no doubt a timely promotion for Luckern...does IDCC need to continue w/this or can they appeal to the Federal Circuit straight-up.
Why would a staff open their mouth to push for the validity to be reassessed if they did not agree with the findings of the ALJ on infringement? Just asking for what reasoning they may have to do that.
It's like saying, please do your best to screw IDCC out of justice if ya don't mind.
The whole thing is beginning to reak of bias against IDCC, even after prejudiced by Nokias BS tactics. Sorry for venting, but it's getting a bit smelly to me
"I can't say I like this treatment of the money, but I like the money"
Mickey - I think you hit the nail on the head on why prepayment discounts are offered. It's an incentive to license, and an incentive to pay early. There is a time value of money factor involved, according to the principle that that money can be working for the company earning interest, or whatever, so the present value (PV) of the payment is going to be less than what would be paid if they waited until in the future when it's actually due (future value, Fv). So it boils down to what interest the company feels they can make themselves on the money by receiving it early - that becomes the discount offered for pre-payment.
My hope is that IDCC learned one tip from QCOM, and has been doing a very good patent scrub of Nokia's 3G and LTE patents - preferrably LTE. By having Nokia trade some patents for a lower rate, it still justifies at the bargaining table a higher rate to be charged to others because they received the value of those patents to monetize with others.
This is why, IMO, making a deal to license someone else first, and then be able to call that rate fair, or use it as a framework for another license is not good, becasue doing that could limit the chips IDCC could put on the table for negotiation to settle this matter at an agreeable rate for both parties.
Nokia plays the patent game as much, or more to achieve advantageous cross-licensing w/other manufacturers to hold their rate down, so putting patent "chips" on the table is nothing new to them, and likely right up their alley to get a deal done.
JD_Gator - that's a good analogy! I have been concerned the "framework" is, you(idcc) license Nokia and then we'll talk. I sure hope IDCC would not dupe themselves into this type of agreement.
I was confused, and was just trying to make the point that by going back to the commission Nokia can still refute the validity and enforcement conclusions that the judge made in our favor - that's all.
I would love to see a reversal and a ban
The Net, someone mentioned that if IDCC appeals it to the commission and it is accepted, that Nokia can also still challenge the validity findings, so it sounds like there is also risk of the commission coming back with a different finding on validity, as well as reversing the infringement findings.
How would it be for them to come back with an infringement finding, but that the patent is found to be invalid and/or unenforceable - in that case we would be in the same boat, or find a bigger hole in it. I think the commission is wide open as to their findings and what they come back with - there are no guarantees when pursuing a reversal if we will end up better off than Luckerns ruling.
My3sons87, Since yesterday it seems some of the pop-up adds, for us poor folk that have lost their fortunes in the stock and can't afford a subscription, are preventing the display of the replies. If you are speed reader you can see it for about a one second, then it is gobbled up by the ridiculous pop-up adds.
That's a good way to view a possible deal, but it boils down to whether or not you believe Nokia will ever pay a fair rate for them without that amount coming from a judge or jury. I'll grant you that it would certainly be the prize for Nokia and IDCC to ink a win-win deal that places us in the catbirds seat for LTE. It would also be well-received on wall street.
Nicmar - I have always worried about this being the case with S/E after the mention of a 3G framework being in place. You would hope that IDCC had learned a lesson in the past on these type of agreements "license the big fish first" agreements - as both LG, APPLE, SAMMY, and RIM all demonstrated how much the market winners/losers change. It's over this same type of thing that the "triggering event" became very cloudy and sort of why we got in this pissing contest w/Sammy and Nokia - so IMO it's just not wise to make agreements like this - purely a personal opinion after owning IDCC for so many years that they should never give any company that's infringing our patents a spectator seat to our negotiations with others - they should always feel at risk that the crosshairs are on them, and at any time we could take them to court.
They need to just say - you are infringing a number of our patents in multiple patent families - you need to get familiar with them and come to a conclusion as to whether you would like to convenience license, go over them 1 by 1, or go to court. Say, let's sit down and go over them together.
If it's anywhere near where TC anticipated the stock will go upwards and folks will see that the earnings will be growing over time. I just hope the settlement does not throw in LTE for peanuts, where Nokia ends up hammering down the value of our LTE portfolio right out of the gate.
It's ironic that by Nokia's number of patents argument for 3G patent valuation, aren't we kind of beating their pants off in that number of patent game w/LTE? I could be wrong on that point, so please correct me if I'm wrong.
Revlis, you are thinkin to hard. No way did IDCC plan all this and if they did it would be a criminal act against the shareholders.
It's a setback no doubt. In looking at the results glennymo brought up on QCOM, I still see value that we came away with validity, and we came away with domestic industry, which going forward is a good precedent. I struggle to understand how they can come up with the no infringement in this case as I think many others do also. IDCC has a good record on appeal, and they really have no choice but to pursue it, as they also will pursue settlement discussions.
I won't be doing any panic selling as I think in the end this is just bringing the parties closer to settlement, and now I just won't count on the watershed rate that a favorable decision could have brought about - it may still end up coming in around what Tom Carpenter expects, and his reasonable expectations in the first place might just help this stock's resiliency more than many ever expected. I'm just trying to look on the bright side, and I while I did not own the stock during the Mot trial, I do not view this as quite the disaster the MOT verdict was. IDCC will stay in the game and will eventually reach a settlement w/Nokia. I don't think they want the ongoing litigation either.
Will there be a Markman hearing as part of the Delaware Trial, or if it is already completed how did they fair? No doubt the non-infringement finding is a setback with respect to getting faster justice and a ban through the ITC. Monday and short-term may not be easy.
However, they both now take these finding back to Delaware, and one point I would like to ask about is that IDCC now brings back validity findings on those patents, and the one short-coming of the ITC hearings are that they do not have a Markman process.
I guess to me now, this all boils down to whether a Markman hearing would conclude that Nokia has infringed the patents also?
I share everyone's dissapointment in the finding of non-infringement.
Well, as already stated by one analyst recently, Nokia was downgraded by them and on the basis of wounds that were self-inflicted. This will just throw another log on their fire if the decision goes against them.
Question for the lawyers. Is it possible that the distance was so great between what IDCC had given as their minimum requirement and what Nokia was offering that the lawyers have not even been trying to hammer anything out? Just curious if that is a possible scenario, that they had decided by Aug. 7/8th timeframe that they would all take it to a decision and are not even trying to settle this week?
If that doesn't work I guess they'll courtesy copy the Chechnyan president, Kadyrov saying they spoke out against him...
I quite reading after "Nokia has a conscience" - what a waste of dribble
It would be nice to see the term sheet verbiage replaced with a solidly worked out deal ove a solid 15 year agreement - that would take out a mountain of uncertainty that has surrounded the stock regarding litication.
Ness, I was lookin for a LOL at the end of your post, but if you are serious, I can only hope you are spot on.